I think Dan is right. You'll make an amazing teacher some day.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh, by the way, Steve, one more point; > > > You said to me: > And then, as if you were teaching me a lesson, you quote this to me "In Zen, > there is reference to "big self" and "small" self. Small self is the > patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." Now isn't that exactly what I just > said??? > > dmb says now: > I dished up the quote to "teach you a lesson" about a completely different > point, my main point, which is one you apparently missed. Again. I dished the > quote up in the context of explaining how your use of the word "independent" > conflates two different senses of the word. The lesson wasn't about the MOQ's > big self and small self. It was about the difference between SOM's self and > the MOQ's self. Huge difference. It seems pretty obvious to me, but I'll > repeat that point with some added emphasis. > > ...When I say "DEPENDENT self", it does NOT mean this self is unfree or that > it is a slave. It means just means that this self is NOT discontinuous with > the rest of reality. It's not made of a different kind of substance or a > metaphysical entity [AS IN THE CARTESIAN MODEL OR SOME]. Instead, this self > is DEPENDENT in the sense that it exists in relation to the evolutionary > moral framework of the MOQ. Mind and matter are not opposed ontological > categories [AS IN SOM], they are names for the levels of evolution. As Pirsig > puts it, they have a matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship, which is to > say mind DEPENDS upon the social, biological and inorganic patterns from > which it evolved. These patterns contain the MOQ's DEPENDENT self and that is > the self about whom we are asking questions.[NOT THE CARTESIAN SELF] That's > the "one" whose will is both free and determined to some extent. That is the > "one" who is free to follow DQ to some extent and the "one" who is controlled > static p > atterns to some extent, as in the Pirsig quote you like so well. > "the MOQ...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." (Annotn. 29) 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
