[MD] Pirsig, Socratic method and the koan (another question for Ant)

[X Acto]

Anthony,

 I assert the idea that RMP was in fact using Socratic method, for he was using
the literary device of the Koan, they are one in the same device. East and West
Philosophy are united in the utilization of it.

I feel this has a huge impact on the understanding of the MoQ.

Do you see the same?
(comparisons below)

 “LILA was originally conceived of as a case-book in philosophy.  ‘Does Lila
 have Quality?’ is its central question.  It was intended to parallel the
 ancient Rinzai Zen koans (which literally means ‘public cases,’) and in
 particular, Joshu’s ‘Mu,’ which asks, ‘Does a dog have a Buddha nature?’.”
   (Pirsig 2002d)

Koan:
From wiki-
 kōan  is a story, dialogue, question, or statement in the history and lore of Zen Buddhism, generally 
containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet may be accessible to intuition.
English-speaking non-Zen practitioners sometimes use kōan to refer to an unanswerable question or a 
meaningless statement. However, in Zen practice, a kōan is not meaningless, and teachers often do 
expect students to present an appropriate response when asked about a kōan. Even so, a kōan is not 
a riddle or a puzzle.[1] Appropriate responses to a kōan may vary according to circumstances; 
different teachers may demand different responses to a given kōan, and a fixed answer cannot be 
correct in every circumstance.
A kōan or part of a kōan may serve as a point of concentration during meditation and other activities, 
often called "kōan practice" (as distinct from "kōan study", the study of kōan literature). Generally, 
a qualified teacher provides instruction in kōan practice to qualified students in private. In the 
Wumenguan (Mumonkan), public case #1 ("Zhaozhou's Dog"), Wumen (Mumon) wrote "...concentrate yourself 
into this 'Wu'...making your whole body one great inquiry. Day and night work intently at it. Do not 
attempt nihilistic or dualistic interpretations."[3] Arousing this great inquiry, or "Great Doubt" 
is an essential element of kōan practice.

Socratic method:
From wiki-

According to W. K. C. Guthrie's The Greek Philosophers, while sometimes erroneously believed to be 
a method by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge, the Socratic method was actually 
intended to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did believe that knowledge 
was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. 
Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not himself know anything, and that 
the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he was conscious of his own ignorance, 
while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that whereas 
he thought he knew something, in fact he does not."
Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete 
definition; e.g., the key moral concepts at the time, the virtues of piety, wisdom, temperance, 
courage, and justice. Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, 
bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in puzzlement 
known as aporia. 

Application:
(1) Kōan is a Japanese rendering of the Chinese term (公案), transliterated kung-an (Wade-Giles) or gōng'àn 
(Pinyin). Chung Feng Ming Pen (中峰明本 1263-1323) wrote that kung-an is an abbreviation for kung-fu an-tu 
(公府之案牘, Pinyin gōngfǔ zhī àndú, pronounced in Japanese as ko-fu no an-toku), which referred to a 
"public record" or the "case records of a public law court"


(2) Traditionally, the casebook method is coupled with the Socratic method in American law schools. 
For a given class, a professor will assign several cases from the casebook to read, and may also 
require students to be familiar with any notes following those cases. In class, the professor will 
ask students questions about the assigned cases to determine whether they identified and understood 
the correct rule from the case, if there is one — in certain heavily contested areas of the law, 
there will not be any one correct rule.