[MD] Wiki: Subject-object problem

[Andre Broersen]

Magnus to Marsha:

That's why I questioned why even SOM was a problem in
Buddhism, I thought it simply didn't exist.

Marsha:
That would be one way of stating it, but I read gazillions on the_illusion_  that self and objects (explicitly mentioned) are taken to be independent, permanent entities.

Andre:
That's right Marsha, their are an illusion...and SOM does not exist in Buddhism.

And to make this whole business of Western scientific and philosophical inquiry accessible and recognizable to the Western 'mind-set' Mr. Pirsig 'reduced' its terms to subjects and objects and deliberately did not use such terms as 'form and formless', the 'void', 'emptiness etc etc.

'In the same way the MOQ has 'created' subject-object metaphysics as that system of thought which the MOQ has left behind' (Annot.144, LC).

It has left it behind by 'fusing' science, radical empiricism and Eastern/Indian 'mystical' insights and methodologies into a larger frame of available tools and the resultant understanding.

This discuss is primarily about the MOQ and not SOM. If you want to find out how the dominant, scientific, 'subject-object theoretical structure' is identified and dealt with by Mr. Pirsig, read ZMM and LILA.

I would suggest that the MOQ is dispensing with the notions of (SOM's) 'substantive entities, unchanging essences or independent agents altogether'.

And this Discuss is a response to and expression of this '... momentous shift...' and talks about and explores these 'ever-widening implications' (from your quote).

This,at least,is what I thought Horse is defending. It is high time some things ARE left behind.