[MD] The Arete Initiative

[MarshaV]

At 06:09 PM 4/14/2008, you wrote:

> > > > >Marsha previously previously:
> > > > > >How about the self does not inherently
> > > > > > exist?  How about it is empty?  How
> > > > > >about it is a flowing stream of
> > > > > >experience?
>
>
> > > > >SA previously previously:  I agree with all of
>these.
>
>
> > >Marsha previously:
> > > > And the above was exactly what I meant.
> > > > Interesting, how quickly you
> > > > decided I was confused and needed a lecture.
> > > > Besides, I was just
> > > > attempting a little poking fun.
>
>
> > >SA previously:  I was wondering why you thought
>Pirsig
> > couldn't be a celebrity, a self?  For the self is
>and isn't.
>
>Marsha:
> > I'm of the mind that there is no self, and no
> > celebrity.  Lots of
> > experience, though.
>
>SA:  Experience?  Values and morals experiencing, I
>know, but we can group these values and experiences
>into patterns, knowing these patterns don't stop.  As
>Krimel would state, zoom-in: zoom-out.

a middle way?


>Self is a
>pattern that we could agree upon in definition for
>practicality, you do need to add "self" after "no" to
>point out what "no" your referring to, or you could
>simply say "no", but then why be concerning with
>politics and writing your representative?  Isn't there
>no-representative?  I'm really wondering where your
>coming from.

Self: ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of 
value.  I think this definition works.  It's a MOQ middle way between 
the old conception of self as something independent & real, and no self.

No self is to understand that the patterns are not real.  Some 
patterns are strong, some patterns are weak, but none are real.  They 
dissolve and change from moment to moment.  A very, very strong 
pattern is the idea that there exists within me a "real" self.  Most 
social and intellectual patterns are in some way predicated or 
connect to this self-pattern.

You ask me to justify writing a representative of the 
government.  And I do not know how to explain this.  I am trapped 
somewhere between "real self" and "no self".  I know 'no self' 
sometimes, and sometimes I fall back to the "real self" pattern.  I 
find a good strategy is to keep the MOQ middle way definition in mind 
and analyze what is happening.  But I've got to confess, I have my 
no-eye on no-self.



>Marsha:
> > I think there is concern that moral behavior is
> > linked to the concept of self.  I don't believe this
> > to be the case.
>
>SA:  I see your saying morals are unto themselves, and
>static patterns of what morals are define morals into
>a particular clump of aggregates patterns, or at least
>that's what I'm noticing by what your saying.  What
>"self" are you referring to that "is linked" to "moral
>behavior"?

I think there is a concern that moral behavior is dependent on 
believing one has a controllable "real self".  So the _idea_ of 'no 
self' is softened.  Listen to the priests.  Do good deeds.  Accumulate merit.


>wandering along,
>SA

yes, wandering along,
Marsha




Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...