Re: MD Self-consciousness

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 17:26:45 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig"

    Scott,

     Platt (previously)
    > > Pirsig makes it clear that the "self" in the MOQ is an intellectual
    > > pattern, not an illusion:

    Scott
    > Do you feel like you are an intellectual pattern? I don't. To me,
    > intellectual patterns are things like "E=mc[squared]", or "the self is
    > (or is not) an illusion". To call the self an intellectual pattern is in
    > the same mold as materialists like Rorty and Dennett, who look on the
    > self as a figure in a narrative. Such claims simply do not fit my
    > experience. In my experience, the self is that which thinks intellectual
    > patterns, which feels, etc., that it is different from all that is
    > thought, or felt, or perceived. In short, it is not SQ alone.

    Well, I consider all the above beginning with "In my experience . . ."
    an intellectual pattern. I don't see how you can think or talk about
    the "self" without using intellectual patterns.
     
    > > . From Lila, chp 5:
    > > "But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the primary
    > > empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths
    > > and SELF are later intellectually constructed."

    Scott
    > Do you recall ever intellectually constructing the self? I don't. Of
    > course I don't recall intellectually constructing the meanings of most
    > of the words I use, but I am just pointing out that because the self is
    > not an object of sensory perception does not imply that it is not
    > "primary empirical reality". This quote is a clear example showing that
    > Pirsig presupposes a nominalist viewpoint.

    The self is not an object of sensory perception? Since sensory
    perception includes a sense of value, and since I value my self, I
    would say the the pattern I call "self" is indeed an object of sensory
    perception. Patterns created in Coleridge' 'imagination," such as your
    DQ/SQ polarity, also strike me as objects of sensory perception.

    I dislike bringing in an outsider to a website devoted to the MOQ, but
    Ken Wilber says we have three "eyes" or sensory perceptions--an eye of
    the flesh (physical senses), an eye of mind (that can see the truth of
    the square root of minus 1), and eye of spirit (that sees beyond both
    the eye of flesh and eye of mind to ultimate wisdom). What do you think
    of that idea? (IMO, the eye of spirit would be comparable to Pirsig's
    "sense of value.")

    Platt
    > > Whence the intellectual construction of self? Like the origin of
    all
    > > constructions in the MOQ, from Dynamic Quality.

    Scott
    > Why not entertain the possibility that the self is DQ? It appears to
    > create SQ (one thinks new thoughts), and is just as undefinable as DQ,
    > and thus that possibility is more logically coherent and empirically
    > adequate than the MOQ.

    I definitely entertain the firm belief that the self is Quality.
    Quality=experience=reality=morality=self. IMO that's precisely what the
    MOQ suggests.

    Whose experience is Quality you ask? Why yours, of course. To prove it,
    just sit on a hot stove. :-)

    In case I haven't made myself too clear, I call on the following from
    Steve Petersen to help.

    Steve:
    I think of consciousness and awareness as the same thing. To me
    self-consciousness is a type of awareness. I don't think there is a great
    mystery to be explained once you make accept Pirsig's postulate that
    reality is value. I think that awareness is another way of thinking about
    Quality. You asked for synonyms for Quality other than "expectation" (which
    I don't like). Well, I consider both 'awareness' and 'experience' to be
    useful in this way.

    When I say 'everything is Quality' I'm saying that everything is awareness
    and everything is aware. As for awareness as an emergent property, I think
    that awareness is fundamental to existence and emergent as "awarenesses"
    conceived as molecules combine to form a new awareness, an organism that is
    aware of (in other words, experiences value)-- things like hunger or a sex
    drive that molecules are not aware of but also isn't aware of the forces
    (value experiences) that effect molecules.

    I wish I'd said that. Thanks Steve. :-)

    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 -

    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 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 17:26:31 GMT