[Marsha]
Yes, but Ms. Albahari's investigation is whether the 'sense of self'
does, in fact, reflect a real 'self'. A far more important investigation
consider that RMP rejects an autonomous self.
[Arlo]
You keep repeating this, Marsha, and I don't know why. I am not
interested in the "real/illusion" dichotomy of existential existence. I
am interested in how these patterns provide value within a MOQ. And
within a MOQ there are no existents/illusions, there are only patterns
of value.
"Illusions" only appear in response to holding something as being
existentially real. For example, the intellectual pattern of value
called "free will" fosters the belief that the "self" is an existential
existant. This is an illusion created by this pattern.
Yes, Pirsig (and I) reject "autonomous selves", but this is just another
way of saying "rejects S/O". Okay. Done. So the "self" is not an
autonomous agent (as it is within S/O), but it IS a pattern of value.
You see, calling it an "illusion" only has value WITHIN the S/O view.
Within a MOQ, there are no "illusions" nor are there existential
existants. There are only patterns of value. To bring "illusion" into a
MOQ begs the question, what makes one pattern of value an "illusion" and
another pattern of value "not", and you can see (I hope) what a
nonsensical question that is.
Once we reject SOM, we can dispense entirely with such labels as "real"
and "illusion" and instead talk about patterns of value. The "self",
within a MOQ, is NEITHER an illusion NOR a existential existant, it is a
pattern of value. "Illusion" and "real" only have meaning from within
the SOM view, "illusion" only makes sense in opposition to an
"autonomous self" (which is how Pirsig uses it).
[Marsha
I am still interested in examining the strong 'sense of self' I
experience and how it relates to a real self. I want more than just
RMP's words or the Buddha's, for that matter, I want to see for myself
(as best I can).
[Arlo]
Well, again, I think this is framed in an S/O way. What is a "real
self"? From a MOQ perspective, a "real self" and a "sense of self" are
the same thing, it is a way of mapping experience. It is a way to
describe experience, and the nature of that description is its value.
So whether you describe experience via the "autonomous self" or "big
self/little self" or "sense of self/real self" or any other way of
framing what the "self" is, you are formulating a pattern of value that
adds meaning to experience. All of these are analogies to describe
experience. From within a MOQ, the question is not whether or not such
patterns are "real" or "illusions", this is nonsensical and as such they
are neither, but whether such patterns are valuable (and that they
appear at all suggests they have/had some value at some point to someone).
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
