From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 10:10:17 BST
Hi Sam
[Sam:]
In his letter to you, Pirsig writes:
> You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the
> greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
> confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
> corresponding particular experience and which behave according to
rules
> of their own.
Do you have any idea about who or what might be *doing* the manipulation
(ie, who or what has the
'skill')? Or is it that the symbols react to Quality on their own,
without an intermediary? Or
something else?
[Paul:]
I think our language presupposes the necessity for "something" to have
the skill or "something" to react that is in addition to or outside of
the manipulation or the reaction itself and this makes it difficult to
answer without sounding intentionally esoteric.
Nonetheless, one answer to your question may be given by drawing on a
crude analogy with the weather. When we talk of "the weather", we say
"it is raining", "it is windy" and so on. If we ask what the "it" is
that is raining without reference to rain or wind we find ourselves
thinking of nothing. In a similar way, if we ask "what is it that is
thinking [manipulating symbols]?" it is normal to answer with "the
mind". If we then ask what the mind is without reference to thinking
[manipulating] or thoughts [symbols] I suggest we may equally find
ourselves thinking of nothing. In either case, one is not prevented from
talking meaningfully about "the weather" or "the mind" but it is always
with reference to their processes.
Another answer is provided in a piece of Buddhist literature I recently
quoted:
When questioned by Mara "what is a person?", Vajira answered "Mara, why
do you insist on the word "person"? There is nothing here but a group of
processes. Just as the word "cart" is used when the parts are combined,
so the word "person" is commonly used when the five skhandas* are
present."
* Skhandas means something like "impermanent heaps" - body, feeling,
perception, karma and consciousness
An MOQ answer might be - it is not that Sam has intellectual patterns;
it is intellectual patterns that have Sam.
Cheers
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 10:12:26 BST