Marsha said to dmb: Outrageous moral nightmare? Self is a static pattern, a useful illusion. How about answering a question: tell me if for you, RMP, or the MoQ, the sense-of-self is anything more than a persistent pattern? Please explain???
dmb says: You're asking for an explanation? I just gave you that. Twice. I seriously doubt that it would help to explain it a third time. In fact, I've provided dozens if not hundreds of explanations and it has never made one bit of difference. Even though I often dispute your deeply confused statements and assertions, I do not expect you to understand the objections. With a track record like yours, such an expectation would be quite foolish. If you were sincerely interested in comprehending the explanations I've already provided, you'd ask a real question about that explanation. Look, I put the main point into one pithy little question. Can you deal with one little question? Do you really not see that the ridiculous fiction is the Cartesian self and not just any conception of the self? Again, Lucy, is Robert Pirsig a homunculus that somehow lives behind the author's eyeballs and serves as a self-appointed editor of reality? If he were, then Robert Pirsig would be a ridiculous fiction and you'd be right. Maybe you should check out Alan Wallace's explanations of the self. He is a huge fan of William James. Guy won't shut up about him and he connects James's pure experience (DQ) with Zen Buddhism. > On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:12 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Horse said to Marsha: > > I think Pirsig is using the term 'fiction' here in the same way that one > > would use the term 'illusion'. An illusion is real enough in that we don't > > have to see it as something that doesn't exist - it just doesn't exist in > > the way we think it does. The 'I' is illusory, not fictitious. Big > > difference. > > > > dmb says: > > Right, Marsha is reading the rejection of the Cartesian conception of self > > as a rejection of ANY conception of the self. This rejection is part of > > rejecting subject-object metaphysics. Sometimes Pirsig calls this the > > metaphysics of substance because Descartes had divided all of reality into > > mental substance and physical substance. These are metaphysical posits and > > that's what is being rejected, the notion that there is some kind of entity > > behind thoughts and things. > > But that doesn't mean that Robert Pirsig is a fiction. It just means that > > he is made of the same stuff the rest of reality is made of and better > > conceived as a complex ecology of processes rather than some essential > > thing. Like Nietzsche and James, Pirsig is saying that there is no > > distinction between consciousness and content, that there is no entity that > > does the thinking or rather that the thinking itself is the thinker. When > > we say "it rains" we don't really mean to suggest that some entity separate > > from the rain preforms the task of raining. The rain itself is the only > > "it". And so it is with thinking. When we say "I think", it's just a figure > > of speech. It's just about the grammatical rules of English. > > In James's 1904 essay titled "Does Consciousness Exist?", he answers the > > title question in the negative. No, as an entity there is no such thing, he > > said. Consciousness is a function, a process. Whitehead described this as a > > direct attack on the Cartesian self. Bertrand Russell said James's essay > > "startled the world" for the same reason. > > > > But to simply say that Pirsig and you and me and everyone else is just a > > fiction not only misses the whole point of what is being rejected, it also > > leads to a rather vacuous nihilism. One might as well say that the bombs > > that dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima with just fictions and so were the > > hundreds of thousand so dead. In a world of pure fiction nothing is right > > and nothing is wrong. Shall we say that genocide and mass murder is "not > > this and not that"? What would be the consequences if we acted as if that > > idea were true? > > Or, what if we read the MOQ as saying that reality - including ourselves - > > is made of values all the way down? What if we acted as if that were true > > instead? Should we treat the world and ourselves as static patterns of > > VALUE or as a fiction? Do you suppose Marsha's nihilistic reading would > > have better consequences? Not me, brother. Even if it did make sense, which > > it doesn't, I think that reading is an outrageous moral nightmare. > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
