From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 28 2004 - 19:23:44 GMT
In a message dated 11/27/04 11:14:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org writes:
Lila's Child, 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."
Lila's Child, Annotation 130:
"The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any
metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a subject,
a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn
Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or "individual" the central reality.
Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a
collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. I think
that if you identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing else you are taking
an unusual position that may need some defending."
Hi dmb,
I'm trying to think through this. This 'Objectivism' would disagree with
Quantum Physics, in that there is no 'Object' in Quantum Physics, or at least,
the object in Quantum Physics is left out there dangling in meaningless terms.
In a Subject-Object division, this would leave Quantum Physics defined as
'Subjective'. MoQ replaces S/O with inorganic, biological, social patterns, and
the intellect. Quality is at the beginning and the end. The 'I' would fit in
to all these except intellect. So, it goes without saying that the 'I' cannot
be identified with the intellect.
Science is 'Value free', so it would also go without saying that Science
would agree there is not 'Self'. The teachings of Buddha show that there is
'Not-Self' as it is not a continuous 'Self', but is reborn. In Hinduism, there is
the 'Universal Self', maybe closely related to Pirsig's 'Big Self'. Brahman
may have a close relation to 'Quality' Pirsig speaks of. Brahman is also
undefinable. Native American mysticism, or spirituality would agree with the idea
that the small self represents the static patterns in both biological and
social terms, but somewhat beyond that, which would agree that the 'Self' would
be connected to the 'Whole' and continuos, but with its own identity. And, in
Western religion, we relate to God, but seem to dismiss our relation to the
'Whole'; there is only God and 'Self'. This continuous 'Self' would be our
soul, or its own identity.
[Hinduism is not even considered a religion by most, even Hindus, it is a
'Way of Life'. It has constantly evolved, as there is no particular Bible,
church, or religion that it adheres to. It seems to me that the MoQ would fit
well into Hindu thought. (just a side-bar)]
So I think this "small self' might fit. God, or however you name the Creator
comes before everything, as Quality comes before everything. Maybe this is
what MoQ is all about -- removing the old scientific and religious thought to
one where there is no object at the beginning of everything. Just as life's
experience begins and ends with God in the religions, Quantum Physics
experiments beginning and end with Quality; providing Quality and DQ are
interchangeable as dynamic terms, and DQ and SQ are interchangeable. It creates a
loop in
which Quality is at the beginning, and the end process. Translated in old
scientific methods, this 'Object' that everything depends on would be at the
end, but not necessarily at the beginning. The tests are testing Quality, or
Value which is absent in the tests in the old view.
So in our MoQ, when we speak of 'I', we should see it as 'i', the small
"self" as, as Lila's Child Annotations suggest. In the biological, we are not a
separate entity of everything around us, and in the politics, religions, and
cultures that make up the social, we are not a separate entity either. But, we
are capable of 'Dynamic Quality' in MoQ. In terms of religion, we are part of
this Big Self when we are connected to this Quality. In politics, we are a
part of this 'Big Self' when we are undivided which allows us independent
thought, which connects us to this Quality. It seems in culture, we are a part of
this 'Big Self' when we are not confined to cultural beliefs, and the same
with politics, or in any individual religion. So social would be subordinate
to intellectual(?) Of course, intellectual cannot be without consideration to
social.
So the point you are trying to make might be that the 'Self' is not at the
beginning or end, but is within all four levels. The 'Self' is not a creator or
passive observer, but a participant in all four levels(?) So, the big 'Self'
might be at the beginning of the equation, and the small self the product of
the equation(?), where of course, the big 'Self' also lies(?)
The Self in the MoQ equation would be Quality(?)
And, I realize the annotations are not your words, but since you offered
them, do you agree with them?
Chin
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 29 2004 - 08:30:07 GMT