[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Platt Holden]

[Ron] 
> I think what Mystics and materialists are infering is not that the self is
> a hallucenation
> but an illusion, a distortion. The self as concieved of as an "entity"
> isolated and distinct
> from the world is the illusion.

In that respect, all nouns are illusions, fingers pointing at moons. But 
there is a part of self that exists apart from everything else -- one's 
sense of self, often referred to as self-consciousness. As evidence I like 
to point out, "You'll never know what it's like to be kissed by you."
The basic paradox we live with every moment is that we never separate but 
always apart. Live and world lives with you; die and you die alone.

> It exists, to be sure and it's development
> and realization
> is what we all are talking about. But what they and Pirsig contend, is
> that  the self
> is composed of patterns of value from inorganic to organic ,to
> biological and intellectual.
> The entity part being the one assumed by the popular systems of western
> social patterns.
> This is the one they deem an "illusion" carring with it the problems of
> our society.

When pressed I think most people would agree that you as an individual self 
have a body (inorganic, biological) and a mind (social, intellectual). Some 
like me argue that you also have a soul -- that which responds to DQ and to 
beauty -- what I call a light or spirit within.

Interestingly in all the years I've participated in MOQ_discuss there has 
been precious little conversation about the Dharmakaya light that Pirsig 
talks about at length in Lila. I don't know why except it may be a bit too 
close to the supernatural to discuss in polite company. Any hint of 
religious experience makes some people go berserk. 

Platt



> 
> -Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:03:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.
> 
> > [Ham]
> > > An existent is something that is empirically identifiable by its
> > properties 
> > > or attributes.  Consciousness cannot be quantified, localized or
> > objectively 
> > > experienced.  Its origin is explainable only by a transcendent
> reality,
> > > whereas existents can be explained in terms of cause-and-effect. 
> > Therefore, 
> > > consciousness is not an existent..
> > 
> > My consciousness can localized in space & time.  When I am conscious
> > of a sound it is always where I am.  Also I had no consciousness
> before
> > I
> > was conceived & don't expect any after I die. This all has a causal
> > explanation.
> > Therefore, I must conclude my consciousness exists after all.
> > Craig
> 
> A nice exposition of the individual and the self, condemned by both 
> materialists and mystics as hallucinations. I conclude both the individual
> and the self exist after all -- and I don't mean exist as figments of 
> imagination -- as fundamental to consciousness. 
> 
> Platt
>     
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/