Hi Mark,
I suppose you are a Pragmatist and think that an "autonomous self" is useful,
and therefore true. But here are some MoQ statements to help you understand
the MoQ:
-------------
Annotation 29: “The MOQ, as I understand it, 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."
(RMP, Lila’s Child)
The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this
“autonomous individual” is an illusion.
(RMP, Copleston)
"This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our
eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of
the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of
reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines
it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This
body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same
program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are
simply a program format.
Talk about aliens from another planet. This program based on 'Me's' and 'We's'
is the alien. 'We' has only been here for a few thousand years or so. But these
bodies that 'We' has taken over were around for ten times that long before 'We'
came along. And the cells - my God, the cells have been around for thousands of
times that long."
(LILA, Chapter 15)
5.6 THE NOTION OF THE SELF
"An example of _sammuti-sacca_ is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the
Buddha's teachings about the 'self' which doesn't recognise that it has any
real existence and that only 'nothingness' (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought to
be real."
(McWatt, Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY')
Annotattion 77: "It's important to remember that both science and Eastern
religions regard "the individual" as an empty concept. It is literally a figure
of speech. If you start assigning concrete reality to it, you will find
yourself in a philosophic quandary".
(RMP, Lila’s Child)
“There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the patterns.
This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind,' 'people,' 'the public,' and
even such pronouns as 'I,' 'he,' and 'they.' Our language is so organized
around them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of
them. There is really no need to. Like 'substance' they can be used as long as
it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some
independent primary reality of their own.
(LILA, Chapter 12)
On Oct 10, 2011, at 2:04 AM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
> Who is the "I" who has not found an autonomous self, as you claim. Is a
> contingent self claiming it knows what an autonomous self is? Does a painter
> know how to look for a neutrino? The fact that you are looking in good faith
> may imply imply that you know what an autonomous self looks like
> instinctively. This may mean it exists.
>
> You are trying to see your eyes. I do not think that is possible. It
> doesn't mean your eyes do not exist if you can't see them. Even if you see
> your eyes in a mirror, how do you know they are yours? You have to accept
> that on faith.
>
> You cannot find the seeker, you cannot taste your taster, you cannot hear
> your hearer. Does this mean that they don't exist? All I can tell you is
> look in a different way. If you can't find your car keys it does not mean
> they don't exist. You have lost yourself, but keep looking. It could also
> mean that the topic is meaningless, like looking for the backside of water.
>
> If you believe that your Self is contingent, then you may be a fatalist. You
> are and you create. The whole universe depends on you to make it complete.
> It could not function otherwise. With autonomous self comes responsibility.
>
> Denying the autonomous self is simply taming one's ego. Obviously the ego
> cannot deny the ego, so one cannot will oneself to push that ego down into
> balance. It happens through the non ego or the non intellect. Such is the
> method towards enlightenment. Once the tool is used, it can be thrown away.
> Denying the autonomous self is clinging to a tool, imo. At some point you
> may let go and move on. One possibility is to stop looking and to start
> doing. Drop that ego and start trying. It is a humbling experience.
>
> Another three page essay of nonsense. Don't be too hard on me.
>
> Mark
>
>
___s
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
