Hi Andre,
On Apr 18, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > The query is simply foolish, because you are begging the question with your > assumed 'WHO' and 'WHOM' implied. That's not being reasonable. > > Andre: > I simply asked you: WHO 'found' all those patterns and TO WHOM do they arise? > Marsha: And putting your 'begging the question' aside, I presented a position concerning the 'self', 'I' and other similar pronouns &etc., based on the many quotes from MoQ sources that follow: Some MoQ quotes: "An example of sammuti-sacca [conventional (relative) truth, or static quality] 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. According to Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is usually translated as ‘suffering’). Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55) makes it very clear that it’s not incorrect to ‘use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’ as long as it is remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a useful convention." (McWatt, MoQ Textbook) "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) "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) 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) 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) "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." (RMP, Copleston) --- In Buddhism there is the term 'anatta', no-self: One cannot say that the self (I) exists. One cannot say that the self (I) does not exist. One cannot say that self (I) both exists and does not exist. One cannot say that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist. Marsha: Upon investigation, I consistently find only a flow of bits and pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns. The 'I' and 'mine' and 'my' are merely nominal conventions labeling a stream, or flow, of patterns. These terms are pragmatically used for social discourse. In my experience of mindfulness, there is no 'I'. Whatever is 'pondering', 'seeking' or 'witnessing': it cannot be said that the self (I) exists; it cannot be said that the self (I) does not exist; it cannot be said that self (I) both exists and does not exist; it cannot be said that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist. Marsha 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
