-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] ego vs self
John:
Marsha,
What happened to "not this, not that"?
Marsha:
Right. Not this. Not that. Yes, patterned and unpatterned experience.
John:
Very well then. Let us go down this road instead. Do a little dance, make
a little love... get down tonight.
Marsha:
Dancing in the moonlight
Everybodys feeling warm and bright
Its such a fine and natural sight
Everybodys dancing in the moonlight...
John:
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.
Marsha:
Yes, from my experience and investigation there is no finite self. There
are patterned and unpatterned experiences. (Just so you know, I will play
dirty and use the paradox card ;-)
John:
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...
Marsha:
All this is habit of thought, static patterns of value. I stated that there
was no finite, as in inherently existing, self; I didn't say there was no
platform. This, that you label as a platform, is beyond my ability to divide
it, to define it and to know it. Mu. But I suppose you can hang any
pattern you want on the platform: carpenter, happy, blue, humorous, finite.
If it falls within social conventions, you can feel warm and fuzzy. I
guess...
John:
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.
;-)
Marsha:
You can choose to be a finite self, but for how long? How long before you
stop choosing, and the patterns take over without your conscious awareness.
Does your finite self change? If yes, isn't that a contradiction? The MoQ
states that there is static patterns of value and Dynamic Quality, where
does you _finite_ self fit into that framework? Hmmmm?
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 isnt 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/
