From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 09:23:21 GMT
Dear All Groupthinkers.
A bit late this, but ...Scott wrote to Platt the 7th.:
> 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".
Self is synonymous with self-consciousness or self-awareness. That
much we agree about, no?
> 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.
If the choice is between materialism and idealism give me the former
any day, but there is MOQism and in it the self is not ONE intellectual
pattern, but intellect AS IT SEES ITSELF. All levels have had their
epoch as top notch with the privilege of defining reality and intellect
has been in that position till now.
Its epoch began when language turned into thoughts, giving the
impression of a subject thinking thoughts. However, a free-floating self
is impossible and the moment P. created his MOQ intellect's
pompous "self" became the 'S' half of intellect.
> Such claims simply do not fit my
> experience. In my experience, the self is that which thinks
> intellectual patterns
No they don't because your focus hasn't moved beyond intellect,
if/when it shifted to Quality it would be different.
> which feels, etc., that it is different from
> all that is thought, or felt, or perceived.
This is patently wrong, when focus is in biology there is NO self
separate from experience ....you ARE the sensations ...except when
you begin to speak/think about them and because language is such
an intimate part of our human experience, the division between a self
and "its" sensations seem ingrained, but selfless existence is all over
the place.
> In short, it is not SQ
> alone. (I mention that it may be illusory, in that the word "that" in
> the second to last sentence does not act in the same way as, for
> example, its use in "that which lights up the sky". The latter use has
> a sensory referent (the sun), while its use in "that which thinks"
> does not, so the "may be illusory" refers to the fact that the self
> has no ostensive definition. That does not make it an intellectual
> pattern, however.)
"It" (the self) is not SQ alone! Correct! That's intellect's illusion about
itself.
In my opinion
Bo
PS
I had to laugh a little when I saw the "Elephant" reappearing and
starting to wield his "profundities" again ...I vague recall him and
John Beasley driving people nuts in turn.
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 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 09:34:00 GMT