[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiment 1.


> 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
>

Greetings Ham,

Remember I am not saying that a self does not exist.  I am saying that an 
autonomous (independent) self does not exist.

An autonomous self would not have any dependencies, not even experience. 
Therefore, your autonomous self does not exist.  Does an experience 
spontaneously erupt?

Marsha