From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 13:30:00 BST
Hi Paul:
> Platt said:
> And where do memes dwell if not in the minds of individuals?
>
> Paul:
> Memes are analogous to patterns - therefore the mind *is* the patterns,
> nothing *contains* patterns.
Nothing contains patterns? Then what are the levels all about? I thought
inorganic patterns were "contained" in the inorganic level, biological
patterns in the biological level, etc. Or are there just patterns on
patterns on patterns all the way down, like the proverbial turtles?
Also, are you suggesting by your word "analogous" that the mind *is* the
memes, nothing *contains* memes?
Finally, how does "symbolic manipulation" fit in to your mind=patterns
definition?
> Paul quoted the dictionary:
> > "Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and
> > presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution
> by
> > selection of adaptive ideas has become more important than biological
> > evolution by selection of hereditary traits."
>
> Platt said:
> Who are "sophonts?" Note the use of the passive voice. Adaptive ideas
> are selected. By whom? Humans and sophonts.
>
> Paul:
> In other words, who is doing the valuing? Bo asked this question and
> Pirsig gave an answer in LILA'S CHILD:
>
> Bo: "If the world is composed of values, then who is doing the valuing?"
> Pirsig: "This is a subtle slip back into subject-object thinking. Values
> have been converted to a kind of object in this sentence, and then the
> question is asked, "If values are an object, then where is the subject?"
> The answer is found in the MOQ sentence, "It is not Lila who has values, it
> is values that have Lila." [LILA'S CHILD Note 76]
Values may have Lila, but Lila is an individual:
"There is Lila, this single private person who slept beside him now, who
was born and now lived and tossed in her dreams and will soon enough die
and then there is someone else -call her lila-who is immortal, who
inhabits Lila for a while and then moves on. The sleeping Lila he had just
met tonight. But the waking Lila, who never sleeps, had been watching him
and he had been watching her for a long time." (Lila, 1)
> Paul:
> No. At the risk of kowtowing, here are another couple of quotes from
> Pirsig:
>
> In response to this from Platt:
> "The history of man since then could be summarized as the struggle of
> the I against the We, the Intellect against Society, a mighty struggle that
> continues to this day."
>
> Pirsig wrote:
> "The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any
> metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a
> subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems,
> notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or "individual" the
> central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ
> says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic
> Quality. I think that if you identify the "I" with the intellect and
> nothing else you are taking an unusual position that may need some
> defending."
I agree. :-) I do not identify the individual "I" with intellect alone or
make it the "central reality." I do give the "I" or individual dominance
over social patterns of conformity and the status quo.
> And a couple more:
>
> "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a "self" that is
> independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns.
> There is no "self" that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the
> self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific
> knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small self." Small
> self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." [LILA'S CHILD Note 29]
I also deny an existence of self that is independent of inorganic,
biological, social or intellectual patterns. But each human being is a
"self" that contains these patterns. Otherwise, an observation such as the
following makes no sense:
"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of
quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static
patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different
static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static
patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some
uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity."
(SODV)
> "It's important to remember that both science and Eastern religions
> regard "the individual" as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of
> speech. If you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will find
> yourself in a philosophic quandary." [LILA'S CHILD Note 77]
If the individual is an empty concept, then Pirsig ought to take back this
sentence:
"Lila individually, herself, is in an evolutionary battle against the
static patterns of her own life." (Lila, 29)
Paul:
> I am finding it difficult to make you see this aspect of the MOQ,
> perhaps I should just leave you in your "philosophical quandary." ;-)
I love being in philosophical quandaries. One of my favorites, thanks to
Ken Wilber:
"If sensations are something I have, I have a self. But, who is the I that
has a self?. Another self. And who has the sensation of another self? A
third self. How many selves must I postulate?"
Or, try this one: Dynamic Quality that created patterns is by patterns
created.
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 - 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 Jul 30 2004 - 14:31:24 BST