----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiment 1.
Marsha --
So your 'autonomous self' is a bunch of concepts (static patterns
of value). Do they change? Are these concepts related to the body?
Are they influenced by society? If there was a definition of self in the
MOQ, I think the one I am using would be close: collection of
interrelated, ever-changing, static patterns of inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual value in a field of Dynamic Quality.
Okay, let me ask you a question. What is a collection of anything if it
is not known? If my wife has placed a barrel of trash out on our street
corner without my knowledge, it doesn't exist for me. Does a collection
of patterns KNOW? Does a bunch of concepts THINK?
What you don't seem to acknowledge is that knowledge is what we know, and
the Self is the Knower. But knowledge is not the self; it is only the
product of the self's experience. Without experience there are no
"patterns" -- no objects, no events, no society. The intellect creates
them through experience. But intellect is not the self (I disagree with
Platt on this); intellect is only the organization of experiential data
into a coherent whole. This is the brain's function, and the "whole" that
we create is our being in the world. That world -- that reality -- is
unique for each of us.
Is an autonomous self one entity?
Of course. Have you ignored my terms "unique", "singular",
"undifferentiated" and "non-transferable" as applied to the self?
Being-aware is the dichotomous entity that defines each self, and
value-sensibility is its essence. Dividing things up into categories like
biological, inorganic, and social is an intellectual exercise, not
experience. Such categories don't constitute my "self" any more than does
the color of my skin, the shape of my nose, or the way I play a piano.
Unfortunately, you've been conned into believing that existence is the
source and precedes essence, that the patterns are real but you are not,
whereas in actuality the reverse is true. You create your reality
patterns, they don't create you. To the extent that Pirsig has made
Quality the primary reality and dismissed the essential Self, he is an
existentialist. He has simply replaced the Being of existentialism with
DQ.
Ponder this concept for a moment. What is being without awareness? It's
the sound of one hand clapping. It doesn't exist. You can conjure up a
universe of great complexity, and even introduce creatures that exhibit
the behavior of human beings, but without awareness it is meaningless
because it has no value. Pirsig himself said "If a thing has no value it
isn't distinguished from anything else. ...a thing that has no value does
not exist."
Subjective awareness is primary to objective beingness. Keep that maxim
in mind, and you'll soon clear up your ontological confusion.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Greetings Ham,
Remember I am not saying that a self does not exist. I am saying that an
autonomous (independent) self does not exist.
An autonomous self would not have any dependencies, not even experience.
Therefore, your autonomous self does not exist. Does an experience
spontaneously erupt?
Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
