[MD] self

[Ant McWatt]

Marsha wrote to X-man (Ron) and Dave Buchanan, Feb 5th 2013:

Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of 
ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static 
patterns value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.


Dave Buchanan responded:

As I've pointed out many times, your definition of the self is 
contradictory. Obviously, if the self "flows" and is "ever-changing" 
then it can not also be a "static" pattern. Those are contradictory 
terms and so your definition is nonsense. Can't you think of a way to 
say it that doesn't contradict standard definitions or violate basic 
logic?

Words like "flowing" and "ever-changing" can rightly
 be used to describe the "Dynamic", but not the "static" or the 
"patterned". Since "static" and "Dynamic" are such central terms in the 
MOQ, your contradictory definition is especially egregious.

egregious |iˈgrējəs|adjective  outstandingly bad; shocking 


Ant McWatt comments:

This reminds of the more esoteric material (Joseph Margolis? - I can't remember off the top of my head) that Scott Roberts introduced seven-eight years ago.  You can just go on and on in these logical circles; spinning words like a logical positivist on speed...  Anyway, as Dave is saying, LILA is basically written from the static perspective of the "everyday, mundane world" where, for pragmatic reasons, it's just easier to presume the components of the self are static, or better still (as Marsha implied), so we don't confuse Pirsig's static-Dynamic terminology with the concepts of Newtonian physics, "stable".  (The latter modification is noted by Pirsig as an improvement somewhere in the correspondence). 

Of course, in my academic correspondence with Pirsig which Marsha enjoys quoting extensively from the MOQ Textbook and PhD (btw, still both available as PDF files from the groovy looking shop at robertpirsig.org!!!), the Dynamic perspective of the "Buddha's World" was introduced, and, of course, the essential  nature of the (dependent) static patterns are seen as ever-changing and impermanent from that perspective.  But some of these changes - such as our sun slowly burning itself out - are outside many human lifetimes.  Though I think it's important to realise that perspective is there (especially in regards to avoiding dukkha/personal imbalance), it can confuse things (certainly when discussing the MOQ) if you're not making it clear that it is this perspective you're taking.  

And, then, you can apply the logic of the Tetralemma and be really strict about what you can and can not assert about reality (and its various components) but how useful is that type of academic exercise for maintaining your bike or getting on with your wife or encouraging world peace, love and understanding?  Not much really.  It's academic, fat man in the refrigator time.  A little bit degenerate and essentially self-serving. 
(Though having said that, I'm still looking forward to receiving Paul Turner's new, updated thoughts about the Tetralemma - for publication at robertpirsig.org - in the next couple of weeks or so.  Who's for MOQ cheeseburger and freedom fries?!)  

Best wishes,

Ant




.