From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 12:47:27 BST
Hi Scott
Scott:
One feature of human experience on which the MOQ is silent is
self-consciousness.
Paul:
Whilst I agree self-consciousness is not covered explicitly by Pirsig,
I'm not sure the MOQ is silent on the subject. It is certainly a very
difficult topic to grapple with. I'll throw some initial thoughts into a
post and perhaps we can work through it?
First, I'm not sure on this but you appear to be making an assumption
that the "self" or the "I"- of which one is conscious of - came first,
is the creator or locus of consciousness, and thus through
self-consciousness becomes aware of "itself." This seems to be the wrong
way round. I think the MOQ, and Buddha, says that the "I" is a creation
of intellect, as are "objects," to cope with or explain experience and
is not itself a primary empirical experience. Therefore, given this
definition of self, "self-consciousness" is the same as e.g.
"tree-consciousness." Pirsig states the MOQ understanding here:
"..the big self invents intellectual patterns that invent the small self
and that collection of small selves known as "we." [Lila's Child p.536]
Scott:
In MOQ terms, self-consciousness would need to be expressed as some SQ
being aware of itself.
Paul:
Since the small [static] self is described as a collection of evolving
static patterns at all levels, and consciousness is described as static
intellectual patterns emerging from Dynamic Quality,
"self-consciousness" is intellectual patterns standing for patterns at
all levels [including other intellectual patterns] around which a
conceptual boundary of "me" has been drawn to organise and explain
experience.
In the case of big [Dynamic] self, self-consciousness is perhaps
something like Zen "direct seeing," in which the static self is absent.
However, this changes the meaning of "self-consciousness" from the way
it was used above [i.e. in a static sense] and is probably better
replaced with another term, or better still, left undefined.
Scott:
With self-consciousness, SQ (sticking to MOQ terms) has the ability to
create SQ.
Paul:
I don't see the argument that leads to this conclusion.
Scott:
If one thinks of any SQ (like biological reflexes) as fixed programs,
then SQ that is aware of itself can reflect on such programs and so
become a programmer.
Paul:
Yes, intellectual patterns manipulate social patterns, social patterns
manipulate biological patterns and biological patterns manipulate
inorganic patterns. Is creation involved in such manipulation?
Scott:
So the jump in dynamism from SQ that is not aware of itself to that
which is, is a jump in kind, not degree.
Paul:
A jump from social patterns to intellectual patterns is indeed a jump in
kind. Symbolic representation of experience manipulated as independent
patterns of thought begins with intellect in the MOQ.
Scott:
Of course, it would be simpler to just call people a mix of DQ and SQ,
but the MOQ doesn't allow that.
Paul:
I don't think there is anything in Pirsig's writing that says that
people aren't DQ and SQ. I think it is more that DQ and SQ together is
ongoing experience from which emerges "people." As such, Dynamic Quality
is not something which people can have or not have as part of what or
who they are, Dynamic Quality "has" them. This side of intellect, we are
static selves in a relationship with other static selves and patterns,
the other side of intellect, we are the whole universe.
From such an understanding, creativity, invention, excellence, does not
arise from an individual in the static sense, but from one's "big self,"
or "Buddha-nature", but it is not necessary to use such [arguably]
esoteric terms, you know it when it happens. Mark's investigation [in
his "Edge of Chaos" essay] into a less grandiose term - sweet spot -
demonstrates that, as does Eugen Herrigel's poignant realisation of "It"
in his famous book:
"'Do you now understand,' the Master asked me one day after a
particularly good shot, 'what I mean by "It shoots", "It hits"?'
'I'm afraid I don't understand anything more at all,' I answered, 'even
the simplest things have got in a muddle. Is it "I" who draws the bow,
or is it the bow that draws me into the state of highest tension? Do "I"
hit the goal, or does the goal hit me? Is "It" spiritual when seen by
the eyes of the body, and corporeal when seen by the eyes of the
spirit-or both or neither? Bow, arrow, goal and ego, all melt into one
another, so that I can no longer separate them. And even the need to
separate has gone. For as soon as I take the bow and shoot, everything
becomes so clear and straight-forward and so ridiculously simple....'
'Now at last', the Master broke in, 'the bow-string has cut right
through you.'" [Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery p.86]
Interestingly, what most people report when they achieve something of
exceptional quality is an absence of "self-consciousness," that is, [to
my understanding] an absence of static self.
Finally, I recognise that you have given self-consciousness more thought
than me and I look forward to hearing why I've got it all wrong :-)
Paul
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 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 12:49:39 BST