[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

Marsha --

> So your 'autonomous self' is a bunch of concepts (static patterns
> of value).  Do they change?  Are these concepts related to the body?
> Are they influenced by society?  If there was a definition of self in the 
> MOQ, I think the one I am using would be close: collection of 
> interrelated, ever-changing, static patterns of inorganic, biological,
> social and intellectual value in a field of Dynamic Quality.

Okay, let me ask you a question.  What is a collection of anything if it is 
not known?  If my wife has placed a barrel of trash out on our street corner 
without my knowledge, it doesn't exist for me.  Does a collection of 
patterns KNOW?  Does a bunch of concepts THINK?

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that knowledge is what we know, and 
the Self is the Knower.  But knowledge is not the self; it is only the 
product of the self's experience.  Without experience there are no 
"patterns" -- no objects, no events, no society.  The intellect creates them 
through experience.  But intellect is not the self (I disagree with Platt on 
this); intellect is only the organization of experiential data into a 
coherent whole.  This is the brain's function, and the "whole" that we 
create is our being in the world.  That world -- that reality -- is unique 
for each of us.

> Is an autonomous self one entity?

Of course.  Have you ignored my terms "unique", "singular", 
"undifferentiated" and "non-transferable" as applied to the self?

Being-aware is the dichotomous entity that defines each self, and 
value-sensibility is its essence.  Dividing things up into categories like 
biological, inorganic, and social is an intellectual exercise, not 
experience.  Such categories don't constitute my "self" any more than does 
the color of my skin, the shape of my nose, or the way I play a piano.

Unfortunately, you've been conned into believing that existence is the 
source and precedes essence, that the patterns are real but you are not, 
whereas in actuality the  reverse is true.  You create your reality 
patterns, they don't create you.  To the extent that Pirsig has made Quality 
the primary reality and dismissed the essential Self, he is an 
existentialist.  He has simply replaced the Being of existentialism with DQ.

Ponder this concept for a moment.  What is being without awareness?  It's 
the sound of one hand clapping.  It doesn't exist.  You can conjure up a 
universe of great complexity, and even introduce creatures that exhibit the 
behavior of human beings, but without awareness it is meaningless because it 
has no value.  Pirsig himself said "If a thing has no value it isn't 
distinguished from anything else. ...a thing that has no value does not 
exist."

Subjective awareness is primary to objective beingness.  Keep that maxim in 
mind, and you'll soon clear up your ontological confusion.

Essentially yours,
Ham