Hi Marsha, Thanks for the analogies. An independent self without it's attachments (physical etc) is hard to fathom, and does not necessarily provide any more insight to those who believe in a contingent self. The passages provide a western interpretation of one of Buddha's techniques for freeing one from the ego, and do not represent a Noble Truth as such. Yes, any investigation collapses for the reasons I provide in the post before. Any logical refutation of the self is incomplete since the self creates the logic not the other way around. We cannot logically prove or dismiss that we think either.
Let me try a different approach. For the self to exist, the absence of self must exist, in the same way that for non-duality to exist, duality must exist. We see things in contrast. Quality presents it self Relationally (a term I coined for this forum, not to be confused with Relativism which is nihilistic). To deny the self is to deny the no-self. For every Buddha man representation, there is the female counterpart, such is the teachings of Buddhism. To say that the autonomous self does not exist results in the robotic self, and this is also untenable as a primary philosophy. It may be useful to discuss what we mean by a non-autonomous self, something I call a contingent self. I will start. This is a self which exists at the interface of two or more other things. It is not caused as, say, a child is caused by two parents, since that points towards an autonomous self. Instead, the contingent self exists as a creation "between" two other existences. It can then be speculated ad infinitum that those this have an equal form of existence. An example would be the edge of a lake. This only exists where the water meets the land. This edge is variable from moment to moment depending on how much water there is, and the land structure enclosing it. The contingent self professes that each an every moment we experience does not represent our true presence, but is simply that which arises temporarily contingent on everything else. It would seem that this interconnectedness is confused for non-existence. For certainly the edge of a lake does exist. The purpose for providing this No-self metaphor is to remove the ego. For, if we do not exist but for the grace of all else we are present, then we must be beholden to all else. This is termed humility. Humility is the antithesis of the ego. Remove the ego, and nothing can touch you. Back to the interconnectedness, which I touched on in my last post. When I stated that you were essential to the universe, I meant it. But before your ego swells, so is every last apple. An apple is the fruit of a tree, and you are the fruit of the universe. Each are required for the perpetuation of that which is. Your absence at this particular time makes the universe incomplete. If you were not here at all or never were, the universe could not exist. This again provides great comfort and belonging, and great humility for all else. So, by dismissing oneself as not existing in and of itself, one dismisses the whole universe as an illusion. Certainly, we can say such a thing, but such a thing is simply to provide a paradigm shift since for the universe to exist, it must also not exist. Not one or the other, but both. To state that the autonomous self does not exist is as much a part of the ego, as to state that it does. They both come from the same place. Finally, to address the quotes below. The two books which Pirsig wrote are about Morality and Values. Both of these denote responsibility. For responsibility to exist, an autonomous self is required. That is the definition of responsibility, for one to claim ownership of one's actions. This is of course the human variety of responsibility, which is one arising of the universal responsibility. As above, so below. Quality exists within and without, and is all the same thing. Now, it is your turn to present your assumptions that go into your belief that the autonomous self does not exist. Then we can discuss our assumptions and come to agreement. Cheers, Mark Mark On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:47 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
