Hi Dennis,
Just read your essay, which spun me out!
>>The Self is therefore the patterned, static, known aspect of an
individual.
I loved your essay, but I can't imagine anything more depressing
than defining my Self as just "the patterned, static, known aspect of an
individual".
Isn't DQ as much a part of us (albight an indefinable part) as the SPoV?
I can sit here right now and pretty much trace most of my character as it
has developed through the biological, social and intellectual SPoV. However,
there is an undeniable sense of the DQ which is just as much a part of my
Self
(and indeed the universe), and which makes life so much more beautiful and
hopeful.
And it is because it is a part of me, I am able to recognise it in things
which are apart from my SPoV makeup,
Such as in any of the arts when they are indeed Art or even in nature where
you can stand in awe at the power of it even as it is encoded in SPoV.
And if that Quality (or Goodness or Value) which gives rise to all things is
a part of me also, I guess I can relax and have a little faith in it (and
myself) and there by be more free to follow it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Denis Poisson <denis.poisson@ideliance.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:35 PM
Subject: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
> Hi, MoQers
>
> At the risk of being the last in a long chain of people foolish enough to
> want to wrestle with that undefeated argument, I offer here a short essay
> about the Free Will/Determinism issue. I know this has raised endless
amount
> of arguments in this forum and its sister, MF, but I thought it deserved
> another go at it.
>
> You see, I, from the beginning, thought that :
> 1) The question was a "mu" question
> 2) Pirsig had botched it, and should have recognized it for the platypi it
> was.
>
> Well, recently, I thought some more about it and recognized my stance for
> what it was : hypocrisy. I could not understand what Pirsig meant, and I
> could not think of a better answer, so it naturally became a non-question.
> :)
>
> I hope the following essay will rectify things.
>
> -------------------------------------
> THE SELF, FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM
>
>
> THE SELF
>
> The MoQ defines the human individual as a amalgam of patterns of value,
each
> with its own evolution, goals and desires. Our Inorganic PoV fighting for
> existence, our Biological PoV trying to reproduce themselves before we
die,
> our Social PoV looking for recognition, and Intellectual PoV trying to
make
> some sense out of the whole mess... Among this cacophony of desires, we
> built this fiction named Self, which depending on prefered theories does
> possess, or not, Free Will. Supposedly, this enables the Self to freely
> choose its goals and the ways of reaching them.
>
> But still according to the MOQ, the Self isn't part of Reality, it's part
of
> the Map. The only thing that acts in this evolutionary dance of dynamic
> leaps and static patterning is Quality itself. Nothing else. Therefore, by
> virtue of that ole' Buddhist trick ("The Self does not exists, Little
> Grasshopper") the question is dissolved.
>
> Or is it ? The more I think about it the more I believe this to be the MOQ
> mystic answer, but not the MOQ rational answer. And there *should* be a
> rational one.
>
> Because on the static side of the MOQ, the Self is a pattern of value that
> is felt with as much force as the desire for social recognition, hunger or
> gravity. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about the other patterns of
> value but ignore this one, only because it's inconvenient...
> Our memory creates a sense of continuity from which we deduce our
Identity,
> which is no less real than the value of paper money (a strange comparison
> seen from the SOM angle... ;).
> The Self is an Intellectual Pattern of ourselves, to which we attribute
> qualities and flaws, a past and a future. This image is partly constructed
> from the ideas that influence us, parly from what images other people
> reflect back at us, and partly from our biochemical makeup. This
*creation*
> then evolves with time, but in the end it's nothing more than the
reflection
> of the values which compose us in the mirror of the Intellect.
>
> Nevertheless, in the jungle of pattern that make up an individual, this
> IntPoV has a crucial role, since all of our patterns revolve around this
one
> : not because it *owns* them but because it REPRESENTS them. The Self is
> therefore the patterned, static, known aspect of an individual.
>
>
> FREE WILL/DETERMINISM
>
> Free Will is one of those ideas that influence the Self, and that it can
> accept, or refuse. The novelty brought by the MOQ to that old and stale
> debate between Free Will and Determinism is in the realization that the
crux
> of the argument lies in the very system in which it is present.
>
> Of course, even contemporary thought agrees that the world is a complex
> system of varying patterns interacting with one another. And in the jungle
> of patterns we're composed of, the Self does have an influence, and is
> influenced in return. Inside this complex system, it isn't more determined
> than it is determining. But even in a complex system, the Self is only a
> part of a larger whole, and therefore can again be said to be without Will
> or Freedom. 'Blown around by the winds of DQ', as Horse puts it...
>
> But remember, all and every system of thought are only that : systems.
> Patterns. Structures. By which I mean an organized, mecanical, STATIC
> pattern of intellectual value. And what exactly are we looking for in such
a
> system ? That's right, Freedom.
>
> Now, if you're not all over yourselves with laughter yet, try this :
inside
> a system, how could it be possible to believe yourself anything else than
a
> composant following rules, even though you might have invented them only a
> few seconds ago ? How can you think up a *coherent* system and leave
> freedom, uncertainty, undefinable elements in it ? Even the MOQ has
problems
> with that, because as soon as you say the Self is a IntPoV, you've
unloaded
> a truckful of rules right on its head. The problem might not be in the
MOQ,
> but in the fact that we try so hard to make it invulnerable to criticism
> that we do not dare to leave gaps in it. We do not dare to insert freedom.
>
> As long as we'll try to define the roles of Man and his Self and his Will
> and the relations between them, we'll only invent more rules, which we'll
> *then* think we're conforming to... Yes, inside the MOQ, you ARE blown
> around by the winds of DQ, but remember that a few years ago you didn't
even
> know that such things existed. And in fact, they didn't, then. ;)
>
> Quality is still undefinable, and the Universe non-mechanical by nature.
It
> still escapes the intellectual nets we're trying to wrap around it.
Pirsig's
> definition still stands : "We are determined when we follow SQ, and Free
> when we follow DQ."
> And Pirsig warned us : talking about Quality has nothing to do with DQ.
>
> Be good
>
> Denis
>
> PS (for newbies) : "PoV" stands for "Patterns of Value", "DQ" for "Dynamic
> Quality", "SQ" for "Static Quality" and "MOQ" for "Metaphysic of Quality"
> (but if you don't know the latter what the h... are you doing here ? ;)
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST