From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 23:59:44 GMT
Hi Steve and Nathan,
Some of those Pinker quotes resound for me. The first quote is a lot like
the Buddhist concept of no-self, or anata. They each envision the self
forming around nothing, except in Pinker's case, it's formed by billions of
nuerons, and in Buddhism, it is formed by aspects of personality that karma
lays together into a self. In the MoQ it is formed by patterns of value
that collect together. Nathan's last comment is exactly like the Buddhist
image of the self as a tree branch on which are sitting hundreds of birds,
each bird representing an aspect of the personality. When they all fly
away, we discover there was no branch there at all, the "self" was all
birds, top to bottom. I think the birds are like patterns, with one
conceptual difference between Buddhism and the MoQ abeing that the idea of a
self is called an illusion in Buddhism but is a very high quality pattern of
value also. (but still the same, actually, isn't it?)
The second paragraph resounds for me because it affirms the sovereignity of
Quality in forming people's outlooks. It is determinism, and I think
entirely consistent with the MoQ to say that it is a combination of
preexisting static patterns and DQ, not us, that changes things about our
outlooks. (I don't throw DQ in there, for me it is all SQ)
The "we" Nathan asks about are patterns, already-created patterns, and we
can't go back in time to make ourselves different, our pattern is always a
continuation from history. And as we go forward, we can only change
ourselves according to how the patterns that we are currently must combine
to change (which is good enough for most people, how much more freedom do we
want than the ability to do what we want? Only very depressed and confused
people want to change what it is they want).
Johnny
>Hi Nathan,
>
>You said:
> > Here is a quote from one of my favourite authors on the subject of the
>brain.
> > Do the questions it asks have answers in using the ZMM framework?
> >
> > "Unless you accept the idea that there is an immortal human soul
>injected into
> > the human body by God at the time of birth, there is no conductor of the
> > psychological orchestra, so to speak, just billions of neurons forming
>systems
> > that feel like a self.
> >
> > The absence of such a conductor even as we experience changes in our
> > psychological outlooks undermines the belief that we (i.e., through a
> > controlling self) “can change what we don’t like about ourselves.”
> >
> > But, “Who or what is the ‘we’? If the ‘we’ doing the remaking are just
>other
> > hunks of matter in the biological world, then any malleability of
>behavior we
> > discover would be cold comfort, because we, the molders, would be
>biologically
> > constrained.
> >
> > It appears that a human is like an onion; if you strip away the layers
>there
> > is nothing there at the center.
>
>
>Ok, you've finally convinced me. I don't actually exist.
>
>On second thought, there is no argument at all let alone a convincing one
>to
>be found in the above. Excuse my irritability, but I've spent a lot of
>time
>explaining to you why I think it doesn't make sense to reduce existence to
>material and how a metaphysics of quality is more consistent with
>experience
>than a mind/matter metaphysics, and here you just come back with "look,
>here
>is another real smart guy who thinks he doesn't really exist, either."
>
>We already know there are plenty of people who think the way you do.
>That's
>why Pirsig wrote his books and why we are all here.
>
>Can you tell me where my arguments fell flat for you? Seriously, I'm glad
>to discuss this with you, but remember the issue is about the assumptions
>we
>make about reality and where they lead us. I don't think Pinker has
>anything to say about our assumptions. He probably doesn't not even know
>he's making the ones were talking about. If he actually does have
>something
>to say about why a value-based metaphysics is misguided, then by all means
>bring his arguments into the discussion.
>
>We agree that a substance-based metaphysics leads one to conclude that you
>don't really exist. The question is whether a substance-based metaphysics
>makes more sense than a metaphysics of quality. I've tried to point out
>where I think a metaphysics of quality is better. I hope you'll tell me
>why
>you think I'm wrong so we can move forward.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus
scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 00:01:10 GMT