Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 19:06:51 GMT

  • Next message: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com: "Re: MD Empiricism"

    Grrrr ..

    Platt - why use the pejorative words "figment of imagination" or "illusion"
    ie artefacts, but by definition (of the chosen words) false.

    What is so wrong with the more neutral idea of self as a
    "product of consciousness" ?
    (Whatever consciousness is a product of, by whatever means)

    I'd just like to point out that when Pirsig was Phaedrus his "self" did
    expire, cease to exist, it was no longer produced by "his" consciousness.
    They're coming to take me away - Ha Ha.

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
    Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:28 PM
    Subject: Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ

    >
    > Sam said:
    > > > In Ann 130 above he seems (to me) to be _contrasting_ the MoQ with
    > > > Buddhism and science, and says that the 'I' or the 'self' is "a
    > > > collection of static patterns capable of apprehending DQ". In other
    > > > words, there is a "thing" (ie pattern of value) which corresponds to
    what
    > > > we mean by 'person'.
    >
    > > > dmb says:
    > > > CONTRASTING the MOQ with science and Buddhism?!? No. He's contrasting
    the
    > > > MOQ with Ayn Rand's Objectivism ....
    >
    > Sam:
    > > So, you are arguing that RMP's position (that the I is "a collection of
    > > static patterns capable of apprehending DQ") is the same as the
    Buddhists
    > > (the 'I' is an illusion), and therefore, logically, that "a collection
    of
    > > static patterns capable of apprehending DQ" is an illusion.
    > >
    > > Remarkable. As the man says, "you are taking an unusual position that
    may
    > > need some defending".
    >
    > I agree. This "self is an illusion" business makes no sense. How can
    > Pirsig and the Buddhists deny they exist without existing? If Pirsig
    > denies that when the "self" of his son died it wasn't real and had no
    > effect on "himself," then maybe it's time to call for the guys in the
    > white coats again.
    >
    > As Sam says, seems to me the people who have a lot of explaining to do are
    > those who claim self is figment of imagination, like unicorns, fairies and
    > ghosts.
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > 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 Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 22:49:04 GMT