Re: MD What is a person?

From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 01:10:54 BST

  • Next message: Nathan Pila: "Re: MD What is a person?"

    David,

    I love what you have written. It is too ridiculous and so parallels the
    universe. Consciousness is the final mystery. How a dance of molecules can
    produce the sensation of taste or colour or joy...... What is there to say?

    Nathan ( from Toronto; a new member of the list )
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:08 PM
    Subject: Re: MD What is a person?

    > Hi all
    >
    > Maybe we are making a big mistake when we associate
    > our consciousness as being in our head, this is very theory based
    > idea, experientially our consciousness is a space full of entitities or
    > beings
    > or sounds, etc, with a sort of black hole in the middle that represents
    > where we imagine the inside of our body is. Please discuss.
    >
    > Maybe photons are conscious, and human visual consciousness occurs when
    > you collect lots of photons together in one place. Certainly, photons seem
    > to be information
    > carriers, could stars be conscious? Like us they are also very busy making
    > things.
    > Have I over done the whisky tonight?
    >
    > regards
    > David M
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "johnny moral" <johnnymoral@hotmail.com>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:32 PM
    > Subject: RE: MD What is a person?
    >
    >
    > > Hi folks, i'm back from my trip.
    > >
    > > This is a question I ponder a lot. I would say a person is a point of
    > > consciousness, located morally in morality in what we call a person and
    > > conscious of what that person would be conscious of, given its location
    in
    > > morality. Moral patterns produce ideas of a surrounding outside world,
    > and
    > > at the same time the consciousness (and person) that "has" the idea,
    > > according to the strength and quality of the patterns, as measured by
    all
    > > the individual consciousnesses together. Ponderous?
    > >
    > > >dmb says:
    > > >As I understand it, Static patterns can't "respond directly" to DQ
    > >
    > > What does respond to DQ then? What else is there?
    > >
    > > >The mainstream Christian tradition puts a great deal of stress upon
    > > >the individual's personal salvation and otherwise takes personhood
    quite
    > > >seriously. Contrasted with the East, where there is no self, the
    > difference
    > > >is quite stark.
    > >
    > > Mainstream Buddhism also puts a great deal of stress on personal "right"
    > > behavior and personal attainment of Nirvana, which is attained in both
    > east
    > > and west when one realizes that there is no self and sees the
    sovereignity
    > > of God. I think contrasting religions is a divisive activity. It's so
    > much
    > > more fruitful to see what they have in common.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    > > >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > > >To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > >Subject: RE: MD What is a person?
    > > >Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:23:01 -0600
    > > >
    > > >Sam and Paul and all MOQers,
    > > >
    > > >Sam said:
    > > >To my mind, a person is a stable pattern of values existing at the
    fourth
    > > >level, an 'autonomous
    > > >individual' - ie one in whom there resides an independent response to
    > > >Quality (DQ) which is not
    > > >mediated through the previously existing static forms (the social level
    > > >static latches). It is
    > > >precisely the ability to respond directly to Quality, and therefore not
    > to
    > > >be 'controlled' - ie
    > > >repeating the static social norms - which marks out the change in level
    > > >from
    > > >social to level 4.
    > > >
    > > >dmb says:
    > > >As I understand it, Static patterns can't "respond directly" to DQ and
    it
    > > >is
    > > >not possible for there to be such a thing as intellect without the
    other
    > > >three levels. As Paul pointed out, a fourth level person, by
    definition,
    > is
    > > >a forest of sq from all four levels. I think the transition from third
    to
    > > >fourth level static values generally proceeds in a static fashion, when
    > > >some
    > > >kind of crisis is reached. When the problems of that level can't be
    > solved
    > > >at that level, when it becomes apparent that the next level is
    something
    > we
    > > >need, a little breakthrough occurs. Or something like that. In any
    case,
    > > >the
    > > >important point here is that intellect can't respond to DQ directly. An
    > > >unmediated experience is a mystical experience and, as I understand it,
    > > >this
    > > >is a state where such static patterns have been put to sleep or
    otherwise
    > > >clear out of the way.
    > > >
    > > >Sam said:
    > > >In other words, our sense of self is not ultimate; it is potentially
    lost
    > > >in
    > > >'divine union'.
    > > >(Although the Christian tradition would also want to claim some sort of
    > > >ultimate reality to
    > > >personhood; this is one of the key contrasts with Eastern religion, as
    I
    > > >understand it).
    > > >
    > > >dmb says:
    > > >Right. The mainstream Christian tradition puts a great deal of stress
    > upon
    > > >the individual's personal salvation and otherwise takes personhood
    quite
    > > >seriously. Contrasted with the East, where there is no self, the
    > difference
    > > >is quite stark. But most of that is a cultural difference and the
    > > >difference
    > > >is softened by several degrees when we compare Buddhism and the more
    > > >esoteric mystical tradition within Christianity. As I tried to point
    out
    > in
    > > >the "letter from Pirsig" thread, both the Buddha and the Christ can be
    > seen
    > > >as metaphors for the letting go of the self, of ego-consciousness, of
    > > >intellect. Not to milk the joke, but I'd like to remind you that this
    is
    > > >why
    > > >they all die in the end.
    > > >
    > > >(Interesting note: A few months back I heard a radio interview with
    > Richard
    > > >Nisbett, who was talking about his book, "THE GEOGRAPHY OF THOUGHT: How
    > > >Asians and Westerners Think Differently....and Why". The thing that has
    > > >stuck in my mind was his observation that one of the main differences
    was
    > > >the individuality of the West and that it exist on an almost perfect
    > > >geographic continuum, so that San Fransisco and Los Angeles are at one
    > > >extreme end and Toykyo is at the other. Funny that Zen has been so
    > popular
    > > >on the West Coast, huh?)
    > > >
    > > >Sam said:
    > > > ...In other words, I think the 'dissolving' of identity, which is
    > > >referred to in the
    > > >great religious traditions, in various ways, is the transition between
    > the
    > > >fourth level pattern of
    > > >values and DQ. Whereas I think that you (and Pirsig) see this
    dissolution
    > > >of
    > > >personality as being
    > > >the transition between a level 3 stable pattern of values (the 'social
    > > >self', or possibly the ego)
    > > >and the realm of level 4. ...We just place that dissolution at
    different
    > > >points on the scale.
    > > >
    > > >dmb says:
    > > >Hmmm. No, I'm pretty sure Pirsig's idea of matches the great religious
    > > >traditions and sees it as, not a transition between the 4th level and
    DQ,
    > > >but a dissolution of all static patterns. You know, be a dead man and
    all
    > > >that. The unmediated experience is one that lets go of whatever static
    > > >patterns hold the self together. Its the ultimate emptying out of one's
    > cup
    > > >so that one is naked or transparent or something. So I think it doesn't
    > > >matter which point of the scale, because the whole deal is supposed to
    go
    > > >away for a while.
    > > >
    > > >Sam says:
    > > >In other words, I think it is true and accurate to say that there is no
    > > >'thing' - understood
    > > >in SOM terms as a scientifically describable entity - which corresponds
    > to
    > > >the mind. However I do
    > > >think that there is a stable pattern of values - a person in all their
    > > >infinite variety and
    > > >stability, of habits, language, culture and personality - which is both
    a
    > > >source of independent
    > > >judgement and open to dynamic evolution at a higher level than that of
    > > >society, which can in fact go
    > > >off on purposes of its own.
    > > >
    > > >dmb says:
    > > >As a fellow Westerner I defininately know what you mean. Nothing is
    > harder
    > > >than giving up the sense of self. And most of the time it would be
    wildly
    > > >immoral and irresponsible to do so. But, as I understand it, that sense
    > of
    > > >self is exactly the #1 obstacle to "enlightenment". That's why we must
    > die,
    > > >must be "born again" and all that. One of the reasons I liked the film
    > LAST
    > > >TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was that it showed the anguish involved in having
    to
    > > >give up nothing more nor less than a "normal" life. The most tempting
    > thing
    > > >of all, the temptation that nearly compelled him off the cross was
    > nothing
    > > >more grandiose than a normal family life, with a house, a wife and
    > > >children.
    > > >Campbell describes this as the temptation of "the blandishments of the
    > > >world". But if desire is the cause of all suffering and the goal is to
    > > >extinguish desire and let go of all attachments, then surely the desire
    > to
    > > >have a normal life is to be extinquished too. Its radical, I know. But
    I
    > > >think that's what it says.
    > > >
    > > >Thanks,
    > > >dmb
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >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
    > > >
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________
    > > See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now
    > > FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    >

    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 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 01:29:27 BST