[MD] Zen

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Chris]
Because if you think about it, the logic that we have built and that 
is based on this idea of subjects and objects grows naturally from 
this point - when people starts to make this distinction.

[Arlo]
I think there are undeniable global similarities from the moment 
where symbols became contemplatable "things-in-themselves". Written 
language is one, the codification of symbols into an abstract, but 
logical, system. The "self" is another, as I don't think you can 
point to any post-intellectual culture and see an absense of "what am 
I?, why am I here?", fundamental philosophical questions. Following 
this is a codification of laws, and the desire to "record history". 
All these things owe their origins to the moment when symbols became 
objects to be analyzed themselves.

[Chris]
Now, I also think that the variations in how this rationality is 
constructed has to do with the development of the social level, and 
how strong it is.

[Arlo]
Again, absolutely. The "I" varies from culture to culture. Pirsig 
describes this in ZMM. "Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes 
ancient Greece, one invariably finds a strong subject-object 
differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek mythos presumed 
a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates. In cultures such 
as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not rigidly 
defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid 
subject-object philosophy." (ZMM)

Pirsig has also talked about how ZMM was not seen as such a 
monumentous book in Japan because their culture did not have the 
sharp S/O dualism, and so "they got it" and saw the book as pretty 
much common sense. (This was on Ant's website at one point, I can 
find the link if you want).

This is why Einstein considered the "I" an "optical delusion of 
consciousness". With the advent of intellectuality, we have the 
advent of the "I", but we also have different metaphysical responses 
to that "I", and one is the S/O dualism that underscored western 
intellectual development. This is why I disagree with Bo, I don't 
think the intellectual level is inherently SOL, I think it can be but 
that depends on the social-cultural foundations upon which it is 
built (this underscores the totality of intellectual patterns, not 
just the "self" pattern).