[MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual

[Heather Perella]

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:

> From: Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Monday, August 18, 2008, 3:28 AM
> Ant quotes:
> [130] "The word 'I' like the word
> 'self' is one of the trickiest words 
> > in any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human
> body; sometimes
> 
> > it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there are
> number of 
> > philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand's
> 'Objectivism,' that call the 
> > 'I' or 'individual' the central
> reality. Buddhists say it is an 
> > illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a
> collection of static 
> > patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. I
> think that if you 
> > identify the 'I' with the intellect and
> nothing else you are taking an
> 
> > unusual position that may need some defending."
> > 
> > 
> > "It's important to remember that both science
> and Eastern religions 
> > regard 'the individual' as an empty concept.
> It is literally a figure 
> > of speech. If you start assigning a concrete reality
> to it, you will 
> > find yourself in a philosophic quandary."
> 
> -Richard Shain:
> The process of mental maturation is dependent on
> experiences that make
> possible the deepening of consciousness, although they do
> not guarantee
> it. Experiences can be had at every level of existence,
> ranging from
> climbing Mt. Everest to reading Plato. The common
> denominator is
> increasing depth of consciousness. The oracles of
> antiquity: "know
> yourself," "become what you are,"
> "living according to one's physis,"
> all were concerned with deepening of consciousness. A
> genuine philosophy
> concerns itself with these questions, not with the futile
> effort at
> reductionist analyses of the mind."
> 
> Dwai:
> The problem I've seen over and over again on this board
> is the tendency
> to try and reduce everything to "intellectual"
> ruminations.
> 
> Ron:
> Expanding the scope of awareness
> expands that phenomena of self.
> To be clear, he is not saying the self does not exist or it
> is not
> important
> he is saying that the self is a collection of rigid value
> patterns that
> loosen with the
> expansion of awareness.


SA:  And that's what's so significant about zazen or sitting by a fire.  Once I was sitting by a fire and a friend said to me, "What do you think is first?"  I asked what he meant.  He said, "About here, what's first about here."  I looked around, pondered for a moment, and somehow I came up with this answer that understood where he was going I said, "Touch, with contact everything happens and this all starts.  We are connected with this world."  He said, "I think this all starts with listening."  When I look back on that touch is a start, one could boil listening down to a point of contact, but listening is such an action.  Touch is that "being" stuff people talk about, you know "let it be" or "just live" or "just be" and 'all, but listening is an activity of "expansion" in which awareness is growing.  Nobody is more right than the other, when it comes to what I said or my friend, but when I sit and zazen, all I'm doing, besides the obvious contact of
 being with this place, is I listen.  I sit and listen to whatever is happening.  I've found listening to be in sync with sitting still without bringing discomfort, and since my eyes are closed, listening is the act of attention and I'm very awake to this world.


SA