Hi People
A couple of moderatory type points first:
All posts received (not that many so far this month) and passed are
sent out about the same time each night at approx. 1 a.m. GMT.
Anything I receive after that time goes out the next night. So if you
sent it a bit late or your local mail server (or mine) delays it, it will
appear - normally - within 24 hours. Unless I bounce it. I did say at
the beginning of the month that I was going to be more strict than in
previous months and I don't think that so far I have been either overly
zealous or unfair.
We've had a couple of excellent posts which provide both background
on soul and self and their relation to the MOQ and some of the basis
for Pirsig's writings in terms of those who have influenced him (James
and Northrop). However, just as Pirsig moved on from these earlier
writers and created his own system and metaphysics, we have to
move on and explore how soul and self manifest themselves in the
MOQ as per the program topic.
Now on with the show.
I've got some initial thoughts on the self and soul in the MOQ, so
here goes - all constructive comments and criticisms appreciated.
*********************************************************************
"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind', 'people', 'the
public', and even such pronouns as 'I', 'he' and 'they'. Our language is
so organized around them and they are so convenient to use, it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
'substance', they can be used as long as it is remembered that
they're terms for collections of patterns and not some independent
reality of their own." (Pirsig, Chapter 12, Lila)
*********************************************************************
With reference to self there seems to be a number of ways in which
we can distinguish and experience OUR selves and other ways in
which we distinguish and experience OTHER selves.
Our selves experience the world, from the point of view of the levels -
inorganically, biologically, socially and intellectually - continuously
interacting with the world, experiencing these interactions as Quality
events at all levels, changing, recombining, experiencing in a
continuous dynamic process. The dynamic self experiences and
records these experiences via the static self - growth, health, vitality,
status, thoughts, memories etc. There seems to be an iterative
process occuring, an interaction between the static and dynamic
components and the degree to which we are aware of these
interactions increases as we go up the levels from Inorganic to
Intellectual. This would also correspond with the degree to which we
can actively (as opposed to passively) respond to dynamic quality -
which also seems to be another way of describing free will.
When we experience and respond to other selves, by what means do
we initially become aware of their existence and, more importantly,
know that they are other selves with which we can interact? Again, it
seems to start from the inorganic and work up to the intellect. We
become physically aware through proximity (vision, hearing, smell [in
some cases]), then biologically aware (male, female, sexual rival or
partner) then socially aware through custom and etiquette then
intellectually aware through conversation, exchange of ideas and
beliefs as well as general chat.
But we also perceive and react to other selves not only by these
interactions/Quality events but by reference to ourselves through
empathy, sympathy etc.
This takes us to the point that we are aware of our selves and other
selves but at a pretty superficial level - more like acquaintance.
If this were the whole self then we could all live happily ever after on
our own, meeting occasionally, mating and then disappearing (OK
that's what some people do - but only rarely). But we only fully
develop as a 'self' in the company of others - this is the other
dynamic self, the changing, growing, maturing self, of which the
static self isn't even a poor imitation. It's the interaction with other
selves, the constant redefining and regeneration of all the levels of
each self AND the emergence from interaction of continuously
changing sets of patterns - patterns of our selves, patterns of other
selves and patterns of relationships.
The dynamic self also a self that we can never really know because
so much of it is tied up in others and our relationships with them.
These also change so fast that before we know them, they're gone.
Of course we have static memories of them but that's what they used
to be not what they are now - however you want to define that word.
So there is no 'real' self - but a changing set of patterns within a
greater set of changing patterns, or maybe just one enormous
changing set of patterns. What we tend to think of as a self is
defined by the context within which we happen to exist at a particular
time - nothing more. Everything else is an intellectual construction
which provides for continuity and helps us cope with the world - in
other words when we consider the traditional idea of self we create a
stable set of patterns as a reference.
There is some uncertainty about soul! I would reject the traditional
(western) religious idea of something that survives beyond death to
join with some God or other and the (mainly) eastern idea that
relates to some sort of transmigratory thing which wanders around
inhabiting various bodies. I think both ideas are comforting non sense
- when you're dead, you're dead - the end. If anything survives at all it
is in the static (and possibly dynamic) patterns of others.
As a metaphor though, it may make more sense. When we interact
with others we leave and/or make some sort of impression. The
greater the impression in the direction of good, the greater the soul.
In contrast to self, soul is not something that we perceive in
ourselves (I think - I might be wrong) but what we perceive in others.
Which isn't to say that 'individually' we don't have soul, just that what
I think of as soul is not part of my static patterns but the relationship
with other patterns. Gandhi, Mandella, King etc. have soul, Hitler,
Stalin and Mao didn't. Of course, depending on your point of view,
you could sincerely state the reverse - although I wouldn't want to
meet the sort of person who would.
Horse
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
