[MD] Wiki: Subject-object problem

[MarshaV]

On Aug 17, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> 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.


Marsha:
The are many Buddhists, and very few enlightened Buddhas.  Don't be a fool...      

Read the full article...   



> 
> 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.


___