Marsha, What happened to "not this, not that"? Very well then. Let us go down this road instead. Do a little dance, make a little love... get down tonight.
Ok, so you assert that there is no finite self. I assume this is based upon your experiential choice. However, there are others who assert that there is a finite self, and their subjective opinion contradicts yours. I must judge. But who am I to judge? What is this self that must decide? Where does it come from? How does it proceed? When entering into questions of self, I have no platform from which to say... And yet, I seem to be, so I have some sort of option. A choice. I am that choice. I choose to be in order to be. It might not be enough to satisfy you, but that's ok, it's enough mirror to satisfy me. I am, and I choose to be, a finite self. I am not infinite because I do not choose to be. I have a choice, because that is who I am and my finitude is the choice I make that defines me as I want to be defined. My finite self contradicts your assertion that I am not, and will continue to do so as long as you deny me. ;-) On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:45 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/
