Hi Dave, I like your MOQ expression of self as "a complex ecology of static patterns". This is as close it gets so far in this discussion to the "aggregates" or "skandas" that lead to the idea of a self, albeit an impermanent one, that "decides" its direction and trajectory on this plane or the next, until its existence is spent. This "complex ecology" is itself made up of dynamic processes holding the static patterns together for as long as they last.
In considering Pirsig's quote, he is probably paraphrasing the Buddist viewpoint which says that " in as far as this "complex ecology" is "conditioned" by static patterns of quality (the illusion that they are real and last forever), then it is without choice. In poker parlance, you are dealt the hand you have BUT its up to you how you make of it. Thats it. But determinism denies the probablistic universe where timing is everything. Just as the Buddha did, and as Pirsig realised it to, it is equally dangerous to take either extreme of having "No Self" and "Self" while we still inhabit our illusory impermanent selves. The former leads to unproductive nihilism and the kind of ascetism that the the pre-enlightened Buddha pursued. Forcing the end of self too soon, before one is ready for an "unconditioned" existence, leads to absurd results. On the other hand, pursuing the latter leads to self-aggrandisement and its preservation at all costs, the kind that we see placed in the world today by the Western Church of Reason. What seems to be missing from this discussion, is the role of moderation in considering either extreme. The text refers to this as taking the middle path. Buddhas aside, to those of us who still inhabit selves, need to refer to the self, not the permanent cartesian, essential notion of it, but if you will, the aggregated "complex ecology of static patterns" that free of conditioning, can and still choose among the choices that is before it. But to the extent that this "complex ecology" is "unconditioned", liberated in a way from the static patterns binding it into a certain trajectory, it is free to make its choices, including the choice of not making a choice. In the conventional sense, "freedom" or "free will" is the ability and the capacity to make choices. In the unconventional sense, dynamically speaking, it also involves ending this charade all tgether. The task of removing all pre-conditions for existence is an ardous one, not properly understood nor explicated by many. Even the Buddha had to live out his natural life, exhausting each day these pre-conditions before he was truly and completely liberated, which is why I think your putting it out as a "complex ecology" helps to further the understanding of the MOQ in this discussion. Thank you. Best regards Khoo Hock Aun On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:15 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > > The MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous fiction and replaces > that concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the self as a complex > ecology of static patterns. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's > self is the solution to that problem. > Marsha said: > In the MoQ, there is no subject and there are no objects. If there is no > subject - if there is no self - then there is no subject/self to have > freedom of the will, and likewise, there is no subject/self who has a life > that is determined. The issue is meaningless. So, I neither accept > free-wlll and determinism, nor deny free-wlll and determinism. > > dmb says: > I see your reasoning. The MOQ rejects SOM, so there is no subject, so there > is no self to be either free or determined. I understand how you get to your > conclusion. But it's wrong. You've made a very crucial mistake. You've > equated the rejection of the subjective self with the rejection of self. If > that were true, Pirsig wouldn't be able to reformulate the issue the way he > did. > > > Pirsig said, "To the extent that ONE'S behavior is controlled by static > patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that ONE follows > Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, ONE'S behavior is free." > > If the MOQ says there is no self, then what is Pirsig referring to in these > sentences? Who is the "one" controlled by static patterns? Who is the "one" > following Dynamic Quality? In what sense is the freedom of this "one" > meaningless? In what sense is the extent of freedom and restraint of this > "one" meaningless? Like I said, the MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a > ridiculous fiction and replaces that SOM concept of the self with the MOQ's > concept of the self as a complex ecology of static patterns with the > capacity to respond to DQ. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's > self is the solution to that problem. > Your position, that there is no self at all, is absolutely ridiculous. How > would that work? I've heard of low self esteem before, but that really takes > the cake. If your position is that there is no self, then who is making this > denial? Did your sentences type themselves? Who wrote Zen and the Art, if > not some kind of "self"? Who are you arguing with, if not an actual person? > Your position is not just unsound, it's absurd. > > > > > 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 > -- [email protected] 6016-301 4079 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
