Steve, What it means is that we can talk about self, freewill, love, ect..with a greater understanding of what these terms mean. One can believe they can solve the problem by renaming but, Practically speaking, it seems a rather heavy burden to lay apon semantics. Does it make a practical difference to use the term "self" with the understanding of an ecology of static patterns or using the terms " a collection of static patterns with the capacity to respond to DQ" and is it not not an expansion of your previouse understanding? It sure is. Again the data is the same its the way we look at it that has changed.
Fact is our cultural conceptions are allways coloring our ideas it is almost impossible to outright reject them it is more accurate to suppose that we expand our understanding of them. It just seems rather slavish to tie ourselves to taboo concepts and terms by rejecting them. I seems to insure forever being bothered by their ghost in our conversations. -Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Peterson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Freedom within structure. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:47 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > To all concerned, > The question of the self, freewill, morality, are those terms used in an MoQ, > should they be used, are best understood when we understand the aim > of the expansion of reason."Greater explanitory power" means just that. > Greater explanitory power, not rejection of old concepts, the expansion > of their meaning. > Therefore we should revel in the expansion of old ideas we should get excited > over discussing how they fit into a larger understanding. I'm not sure what you mean by expansion rather than rejection. If we take the concept of self, what does it mean to you that Pirsig expanded rather rejected a traditional conception, i.e. the Cartesian version? Expansion with regard to Pirsig's take on reason fits Wilbur's idea of transcending while including what came before, but I don't see how Pirsig's concept of self includes the Cartesian self. I see it as rejecting it (or at least certain ideas about it) in favor of a different conception of the self as a collection of static patterns with the capacity to respond to DQ. In fact, Pirsig even goes so far as to say that the Cartesian self is an impossible fiction. That sounds like a rejection rather than an expansion to me. Consider that Lila doesn't contain the patterns of value, the patterns have Lila. That is a Copernican reversal rather than an expansion of selfhood. See Lila: "This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it." And LC: 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." 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
