Hello everyone John Beasley wrote: >What follows was composed as a response to the discussion of self and soul in the MOQ in >the LS forum, but rejected as being off the topic. I am sufficiently intrigued by Julian Jaynes >exploration of the emergence of the notion of soul in Greek thought, which pushes back >Pirsig's own exploration of the roots of SOM, and links this to the development of >consciousness of self, to place this in the alternative forum rather than attempt to rewrite it:- Hi John Nice to hear from you again! And isn't it great to have a forum like moq_discuss... Diana and Horse and others should really be commended on providing a Quality site where all MOQ ideas can be discussed no matter how irrelevant they seem. Now since you were originally writing to the LS discussion group I looked up the topic of the month and found: Is there a soul or self? If so, how does it fit into the MOQ? Since I do not belong to our sister forum I will attempt an answer here... traditionally it is held that the soul is immortal and what we think of as self is mortal and disappears at death while the soul goes on. So it would seem from the classical point of view that soul might be equivilant to some ethereal forever while self ceases be when awareness of self ceases. and these two concepts, soul and self, are not the same. The MOQ seems to state that self exists only as social and intellect static latchings valueing preconditions of the inorganic and biological levels, taken as a whole, along with undefinable Dynamic Quality. As far as Jaynes, recent research into the workings of the human brain seem to indicate a much higher level of complexity than anticipated by researchers in the 70s and 80s. I don't think this negates Julian Jaynes' work however we must realize that left-brain/right-brain interactions depend on (value the precondition of) the whole organism AND its environment. "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is a wonderfully compelling book and I used quotes from it extensively in one of my papers on my website last year. Since then, however, in doing more reading and pondering on the subject I have come to see that left-brain/right-brain is a classical way of simplifying the complexity of quantum action. There is much value in Jaynes' writings but it is also pretty apparent to me that it just barely scratches the surface... it is a beginning though? > >I look forward to hearing more from Bo on how we escape the quandry of becoming "leaves >in a MOQ storm" - I love the metaphor. However I must take issue with his words "official >MOQ teaching". I simply can't subscribe to any top down imposition of dogma, MOQ or >otherwise. I value Pirsig's ideas very highly or I wouldn't be involved here, but I put my own > > >experience and reflection ahead of any official line. For sure I will often be wrong, or >misguided, but the alternative is unthinkable. Following gurus is rightly criticised by my >favourite mystics, who include the two Krishnamurtis and John Wren-Lewis. Lacking their >experiences I can only report their views in this case. Glove: I believe the quest for principles or axioms is an attempt at defining "official MOQ teachings" and like John I am leery of such. Still, it sure seems as though it would be helpful to have certain unambiguous guidelines to the MOQ, unassailable truths, if you will. But if my time here with the discussion group has taught me anything, it is that this is asking the impossible. Even when there is a general concensus in the discussion group, there always seems to be those who disagree with it... usually me. :) But perhaps that is just the nature of the beast. > >Robert comes very close to my concerns and while I don't remember his earlier proposal for >a metaphysics dividing reality into experiential quality and attentive self, it seems a good >debating point for me. Both terms are extremely slippery, though, and I guess we can only >grapple with what is beyond language and concepts through the media of language and >concepts that must embody any metaphysics. A good metaphor could be worth a thousand >words here. > >I do like your point, Robert, that "the 'Self" IS the unity of our experiences". It's pretty >abstract, but I think worth hanging onto. That unity is itself worthy of note, and stands apart >from the actual experience. It also seems to me that without a self there is no way of >explaining the emergence of static quality, particularly when we look at the highest level of >intellectual static quality, and at that other form of quality which says some books, paintings >etc are better than others. Glove: According to Julian Jaynes, the "self" as we know it to be did not exist prior to a few thousand years ago. Yet certainly static quality still existed, did it not? That's why I like Doug Renselle's axiom stating that: "Primal or proemial creation in no way depends on man or any other sentient." If the self as subjective "me" did not exist we are forced into using such terms as "animal consciousness" and the like, where self is (apparently) not differeniated from not-self. Sounds like we are then treading suspiciously close to mysticism. But then, does a dog have Buddha nature, or not? Best wishes, glove MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
