At 12:19 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:13:10 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
At 07:59 AM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
> > At 07:08 AM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
> > >Marsha,
> > >
> > >I like your description of "self."
> > >
> > > > The self is an ever-changing,
> > > > collection of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
> > biological,
> > > > social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to
> > > > Dynamic Quality.
> > >
> > >I take it this means you believe the self is no illusion even though
> > Pirsig
> > >and some others say it is.
> > >
> > >Platt
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi Platt,
> >
> > The self is empty of independent (inherent) existence, therefore it
> > is an illusion but,,, conventionally it is user-friendly and
> > useful. - Where would I hang this _I_ if I didn't have this
> > conventional, but illusionary self? Who would I dance with all day
> > if I didn't have this illusionary self? Who would create this play
> > that is life?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Is "self" then a matter of expediency -- a useful figment of imagination,
>like some find God to be?
>
>Platt
Platt,
As far as I know, self isn't other than an ever-changing, collection
of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
Maybe what is of interest is what pattern is active at any given
nano-second. Maybe it is interesting, but maybe not. The
God-static-pattern-of-value is not meaningful to me.
Marsha
/
Hi Marsha,
I like your description of the self as well, as it is dynamic and
not separate. I can feel the self, but like Quality, when I
describe it, I pin it down into something and have to leave the rest
of it out. There is, perhaps, a useful concept in quantum mechanics
known as state vector collapse. While I don't claim to understand
the math, my understanding of what it states is that: everything
exists in a probabilistic state. As soon as we measure something,
it is reduced to a single state (it collapses); the act of measuring
it by the observer creates this collapse. In the same way, as soon
as we define Quality (an act I believe Phaedrus was tormented by) we
collapse it into a single reality having to forgo the rest. The
self may be the same thing. As soon as I collapse it descriptively
I am left with one static notion, rather than the dynamic one, which
may be an endless collection of static ones..
I know I am a neophyte in this forum, and that this has already
probably been discussed (collapsed), I just wanted to bring some of
the notions of physics up (again?) to see if science has any bearing on MoQ.
Thanks,
Willblake2
Hello Willblake2,
In spite of holding my breath and stomping my foot, I love science
and math. I'm sorry I didn't realize that when I was ten-years-old,
but that's the way it goes. Can you imagine Michio Kaku knew he
wanted to be a theoretical physicist at age 10? Wow!
I would hope that no matter how many go-arounds a topic cycles on
this forum, each time it offers a little more insight as we all move
towards Dynamic Quality and an increased understanding of the MOQ by
our interactions with each other. And bless those who throw a wrench
into the works to make us rethink our position. For with their help
we gain an opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding.
Thank you.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
