From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 03:27:17 GMT
Bo,
[Scott prev]> > 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?
No, though I consider the whole business to be too self-contradictory to be
pin-downable. Roughly, I would say that self-consciousness is the producer
of the self as both subject and object, which of course contradict each
other.
>
> > 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.
If the self is intellect that sees itself (I like this characterization,
BTW), then to call it SQ is a huge mistake. The ability to see itself makes
intellect radically different from the SQ of the other levels. It's not just
another static level.
>
> 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.
Again, if intellect can have a "half" then we are not talking SQ anymore.
>
> > 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.
Assuming it can shift to Quality, then yes, but my Buddhist leaning says
that one doesn't just shift up. Instead one learns to value the
contradictory identity of self and other.
>
> > 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.
Nominalism. The "selfless existence" of the biological is how it appears to
us, who do not perceive the underlying Intellect of the particular animal or
plant in front of us.
>
> > 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.
So you disagree with Pirsig on this?
- Scott
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 Nov 27 2003 - 03:55:18 GMT