John, On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:32 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > >> >> > J: I would say we are being-in-4-levels and the self is a 3rd level >> > pattern. We derive a sense of self from our society - starting with Mom. >> >> D: >> Not according to the MOQ... and I take it that is what we're >> discussing... right? >> >> > J: We are discussing actual experience in the light of the MoQ. I don't > see what interpretation could possibly add to PIrsig's excellent prose. He > doesn't need any outside explanation, imo. But then, neither does the > Bible but people seem to prefer the priesthood to thinking for themselves. > Everywhere it's like that. > > But I explained my thoughts on this to ANT and DMB so maybe I don't need to > reiterate all that. For now, and ease of communication in the future, > when I talk about the individual, I am talking about being in the whole of > 4 levels but when I talk about self, I am talking about the social > construct that people see and that types on plastic keys and seems to be > real to others, as they seem real to me. > > That's interesting... to be a self you can dwell in three levels but to be > an individual you have to think deeper. It makes sense!
D: I don't think so. :-) The self isn't an object that other people see. If it is, where is it? Is the self this body? Does it live inside the body? How come no one has ever seen the mysterious self? When I look at someone I perceive a collection of values... the inorganic molecules that made up the body, the living tissue that grows and regenerates, the personal history the self has experienced, and the ideas that blossom. Is the self hiding somewhere in all that? No, I think rather that the self IS all that. To claim the self is a social construct seems demeaning somehow, as if it is only what other people see and it is only real to them. That doesn't make sense... MOQ sense, that is. > > > > > D: >> Perhaps you think of yourself as an individual separate and apart from >> all you know while I think of my self as a collection of patterns that >> exist in concert with the universe. >> >> > J: My individuality is built of of the richness of what I think about, so > what I think about and my individuality are inseparable. > But my self is a distinction of convenience that's different from all other > selves. D: Hmmm. That seems at odds not only the MOQ but with the world in general. > > > > >> > >> >> John: Most great schools of art were exactly that - schools. >> >> Groups of individuals. >> > >> > D: >> >> Hmmm. I tend to disagree. A school may appear to be a group of >> >> individuals but the value that holds that school together is rooted in >> >> culture. Remember how Robert Pirsig describes the university in ZMM? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > J: Ok, here's a good topic . I agree that a school is a product of >> > culture, but you can't have a culture, without individuals. Any more >> than >> > you can have any social pattern without biological being and support. >> >> D: >> I would word this differently. In terms of the MOQ, social patterns >> arise from biological patterns just as biological patterns arise from >> inorganic patterns. The term 'individual' comes from the Latin form of >> the Greek 'atom,' that which cannot be cut any further. If you >> understand the lesson from ZMM then you must know that to cut the >> individual off from its environment will kill it just as effectively >> as cutting off one's head. >> >> The individual in that sense becomes the universe. This is vitally >> important to understand not only in terms of the MOQ but in the >> process of life itself. >> >> > > J: If an individual is inseparable from his conceptions, then the more you > conceive, the more you are. We are the universe, but the universe is > always expanding and not a fixed thing. D: Didn't you just answer your own question? J: > That's how I look at DQ. without > freedom there is no value. D: Freedom from what? > > > >> J: >> > An >> > ongoing matter of discussion, the way the levels interact. Platt has >> hung >> > his hat on the idea that the 4th level is the Individual level and I >> think >> > the point could be made that pure intellect is pure individualism. >> >> D: >> I never agreed with Platt on this or on much else for that matter. >> >> > J: Platt often composes the most beautiful litttle verbal epiphanies you > could ask for. I disagree with Platt's love of conservative politics, but > I like Platt. I like anybody who can show such devotion and persistence to > stay for so long discussing the MoQ. Not many of those kind of people in > the world and each one is precious. Look how much Platt contributed in the > early days. It's prodigious and a lot of high quality stuff. D: I didn't say I disliked Platt. I like him a great deal, and his writings are top notch. I just don't agree with them. His conservatism aside, though it may well contribute, I could never see any sign of his thinking evolving over the years. None. Zilch. Nada. > > > > >> >J: >> > But the best label i can imagine is, "the high country of the mind" >> > Usually it's a lonely climb to get there, but not necessarily. . It's >> > better to have a team, if you can find one. More chance of surviving >> and >> > avoiding the loony-bin. >> >> D: >> By team I take you mean a group of individuals? >> >> > I would say a community of individuals rather than an assemblage of selves, > but I just glommed onto that little analytical knife-cut and I'll have to > use it for a while before I'm ready to put in my toolbox. D: Ah. So now the individual and the self are to be seen as different, somehow. So where is this individual? Is it inside the body? Does it stop at the skin? Have you ever seen it? > > D: > >> I think most of the stories in the bible are tales from more ancient >> times when the prevailing culture was one more related to animism >> rather than associated with religion. Religion grew out of those old >> myths. >> >> > J: Well as far as the Bible story goes, Biblical religion started at > Sinai, with the golden calf. That was when Moses instituted religion. > It's just something people need. They need to see and control. They can't > live in the face of mystery, it terrifies them. D: The bible is a collection of myths that come down to us from quite possibly before the time of the written word. Christianity usurped those old myths in an attempt to subvert the pagans into believing in a new religion. I think if you look into this with an open mind you'll discover religion was around long before Moses. > > D: > >> When we subsume self and object into a more expansive Metaphysics of >> Quality it becomes clearer that there are no individuals as such. >> Rather, we are all intimately connected to our environment whether we >> recognize it or not. The patterns that form a community are not the >> same as the patterns that rule the jungle yet they share an >> evolutionary history. >> >> > > When we see from the MoQ that true individuality consists of four levels, > and not just three, we comprehend how our individuality is interwoven with > all life and being. > > I don't know if we're on the same page, but we seem close, D: Well, the qualifier 'true' in front of individuality leads me to think otherwise. I tend to think of the individual as a convenient fiction, something we tell ourselves in order to hold onto our human-centric notion of the world. If the self is seen as a collection of patterns, then it becomes clear that by separating the individual out of those patterns and calling it true negates the value of the MOQ. If someone desires to hold onto the notion of the individual as the center of experience, fine. That is contrary to the MOQ, however. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
