Hi dmb,
Marsha:
Oh, was that why Andre wanted me to drop the 'INTRINSICALLY existing self' from
the explanation? But that is exactly what I was talking of, an independent,
intrinsically existing self; just like the Buddhist, RMP and I have stated? -
And you would like to engage in the process of determining what RMP means?
That's a joke! There was no confusion, the self, as a pattern, is moral like
all Value.
And for the record, in my experience of mindfulness, there is no 'I'. If there
were such an 'I', it would not longer be considered mindfulness.
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.
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)
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.
Of course, in LILA it also states: "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the
Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth." (LILA,
Chapter 8). So perhaps, dmb, in your MoQ the self is worth clinging to.
Marsha
On Apr 19, 2012, at 12:57 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Andre said to Marsha:
> ... Who says anything about this 'self' being 'autonomous', 'some independent
> primary reality', 'concrete reality',? It is an assumption you seem to claim
> that I am making. This I deny. ... I simply asked you: WHO 'found' all those
> patterns and TO WHOM do they arise?
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, you've hit upon one of the central errors. Buddhism and the MOQ both
> reject what we in the West would call the soul, the substantial Cartesian
> self or the transcendental ego. Buddhism and the MOQ both posit a very
> different conception of the self, a conception wherein the good is central.
> But Marsha uses the quotes that reject this Cartesian self against the MOQ's
> moral self, against any self. What happens to values and growth, ethics and
> morality, responsibility and duty if there is no self at all? It all
> evaporates into black, empty space.
> This is a worldview in which the most sensible thing to do is curl up in the
> fetal position and rock and back and forth while muttering, "it's only a
> dream. it's not real. it's only a dream, oh god, please make the world go
> away."
> This is neither virtue nor wisdom. It's just a ridiculous misunderstanding
> and a criminal waste of time.
>
>
>
>
> 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
