Ron said to Steve:
...we can talk about self, freewill, love, ect..with a greater understanding of
what these terms mean. ...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.
dmb says:
Another good point. Pirsig's rejection of the Cartesian self certainly doesn't
mean the MOQ rejects any conception of the self. The MOQ's self includes the
body as well as the mind. Creative intelligence is a feature of reality, big
time. And that's what it takes to expand your ideas, to see that the same ideas
can be expressed in many ways with many various terms. By the same token, it's
one thing to say that the MOQ rejects the traditional notion of free will. It's
quite another to say the MOQ rejects ANY conception of free will. It's one
thing to say that the MOQ reject amoral scientific objectivity and quite
another to say the MOQ rejects science. It doesn't.
Yes, 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." But obviously this denial does not mean that the MOQ
also rejects the MOQ's conception of the self. If one insists on saying that
the self is an illusion, one ought to be specific about what kind of self they
mean. To say that the MOQ's self is also an illusion is simply a matter of
shooting the wrong horse.
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
