Ron,
Is your position that the self is patterned experience? Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of X Acto Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] ego vs self I'd like to interject that my own position is that even though the self does not exist as an entity and that it is an illusion or invention, that it still holds contextual value, it's useful and if it has value it has a kind of realness in context. which as we have established, is about as "real" as any experience. The self as entity, does not exist inherently the self as experience does, it is value it is Quality. Quality"is" but hey,.. it's just the way I feel about it. ----- Original Message ---- From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:45:41 AM Subject: Re: [MD] ego vs self John, There seems to be a similarity between these two statements, but there isn't: ------------- RMP: Or better, the big self invents intellectual patterns that invent the small self and that collection of small selves known as “we.” Josiah: Similarly the finite selves with their fragments of experience are parts of one larger self. Our search for truth is a search for what we already possess, and our deepest doubts and profoundest ignorance entail the larger self. -------------- There is no finite self. And the "Our search for truth" also sounds like there is an inherently existing, finite entity doing the searching. There is no finite self. There is Quality: patterned experience and unpatterned experience. Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] ego vs self Marsha, --------------- Even in error I cannot mean an object unless it is already present in essence to my larger self, my complete consciousness. The Absolute is the only real or complete self; and I and all my finite fellows are fragments of him. Suppose I have forgotten someone's name; when I try to remember it, I am sure all the while that I mean just one particular name, and no other. If I find it, I immediately *recognize* it -- it is the name I *meant* all along. In one sense, I knew it all the while: my present self presupposes that the "deeper self" of which the name is a part already possesses what was sought. Similarly the finite selves with their fragments of experience are parts of one larger self. Our search for truth is a search for what we already possess, and our deepest doubts and profoundest ignorance entail the larger self. Josiah Royce, The Spirit of Modern Philosophy ----------------------- Now, I don't want to be just trotting old Josiah out to do my thinking for me, but since we were discussing the larger self and all, this passage jumped out at me as I was doing some light summer reading. ahem. Anyway, what occured to me on my own, is that of all the intellectual concepts, none is quite so socially bound as the concept of "self". Self is something that comes entirely from others. You guys, actually. All of you. You make me. If it wasn't for the bouncing of my words off your brains, I wouldn't exist. Which is why it bugs me to think of anyone going away. I think self goes deeper than intellectual definition. I think it's mammalian. Well...that figures because I think the social level starts with mammals. Society as I picture it is always an emotional connection with others that has its roots in nursing and nurturing young. Bacterial colonies? not a society, a herd of zebras? Yes, a society. Very primitive society, no doubt, but getting the job done in that "I'll brush the flies off your face with my tail, you reciprocate for me and we'll rely on each other to watch for predators" way. Primarily, self is a social concept. When the intellect is unleashed upon self, it can get real tricky, needing high-faluting words from professional philosophers to keep it (the intellecualized self) from getting all uppity and controlling. Like, ya know, happened to Ayn Rand. But do you like the harmony I find? between: RMP: Or better, the big self invents intellectual patterns that invent the small self and that collection of small selves known as “we.” Josiah: Similarly the finite selves with their fragments of experience are parts of one larger self. Our search for truth is a search for what we already possess, and our deepest doubts and profoundest ignorance entail the larger self. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:04 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >From LILA's CHILD by Dan Glover: > > > RMP Annotation 29 > The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that > is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. > There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain > the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and > scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and > “small self” Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality. > > DG: > So the MOQ might say we invent the self and then believe in our > own invention. > > RMP: > Or better, the big self invents intellectual patterns that invent the > small self and that collection of small selves known as “we.” > > DG: > Why? > > RMP: > The question, “Why?” is always an intellectual question. It is > always part of the static patterns of the small self. Any intellectual > answer it gets will by necessity also be a part of the static patterns of > the small self. Since the big self cannot be contained by small-self > patterns, there is no intellectual, patterned answer to “Why?” A lot of > the enigmatic unpatterned nature of Zen results from teachers trying > to give non-intellectual, non-patterned answers to “Why?” That is, > they are trying to give, as an answer, the big self itself, which > surpasses all questions and is the only correct answer that can be > given. > > DG: > I recently heard an interview with a sculptor who claimed one of > the criteria for what he considered to be real art would be that it is > functionally useless. For instance, though buildings are frequently > called works of art, they are functional and therefore not art at all. > Real art is about the changing of perception, not functional > conveniences like indoor plumbing and electricity. In other words, a > “piece” of art is not limited to the functionality of the object in > question but rather subject and object blur into each other. In Lila, > Phædrus mentions something about “a fourth Dynamic morality > which isn’t a code. He supposed you could call it a code of art or > something like that…” as if this Dynamic morality had no real > function to speak of. Is “big self” functionally useless like art? > > RMP: > I used to travel with art people who were always arguing matters > of this sort. The MOQ says art is high quality conduct and leaves it at > that. Since quality can be recognized but not defined there are no > definitions of what is and what is not art, including functionality. > Hence the title of ZMM. > > 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/ > 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/
