I love Pirsig's book, though I read it when I was younger and now I'm interested in revisiting it with this perspective. In Tantra, you're not just talking abou

I love Pirsig's book, though I read it when I was younger and now I'm interested in revisiting it with this perspective. In Tantra, you're not just talking about object-subject duality. One of the concepts is object-process-subject with a transcendental ground. So "seen", "seeing", and "seer", all of which arising and dissolving back into that transcendental ground. Pirsig's "quality" and "arete" which he talks about as being prior to object-subject maps well to that frame. I totally get the idea of curating the ideas, beliefs, and things in your life. I also think that a minimalist practice can reveal some of those things, but if it is minimalism for it's own sake ... I also thought of something else -- I read this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/09/philosophy-sartre-blend-uncovering-birth-existentialism http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/09/philosophy... I only superficially read on existentialism in high school, via one of Albert Camus's book. I did not like it :-) Part of that was a bias where my mother accused me of being an existentialist (at least, it felt accusatory at the time). Reading that review made me realize, there may be something in Western philosophy that has a similar base with the medieval Tantra I was reading six months ago. That idea that existentialism is a search for meaning (I'm not explaining this from first principles and I'm explaining this badly), and being able to develop a philosophy from a cup of coffee is appealing. So maybe there are aspects of Tantra that are not as inaccessible as I thought, and existentialism has a lot of interesting things to say. Lastly, another bit of Western philosophy I'd like to deep-dive into is Rene Girad's mimetic philosophy. From the superficial reading, it seems the central idea is that our desires are not intrinsic, but instead are mimicked from other people. That can paradoxically lead to mimetic rivalry (where the mimicked desire becomes an object to contend over) and from there, mimetic violence. So far, in my reading, I don't find it complete in and of itself. From the Tantric perspective, it explains a lot about the workings of the conditioned or acquired self. Non-dual Tantra also offers an explanation of will that arises from the transcendental ground. I'm not sure how this all maps to each other. I do wonder, though I think, minimalism, when taken as _mimetic_, leads to the things criticized in that NY Times article. But so can another other philosophy or view.