[MD] ego vs self

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andre. 

I had said::

> > Again Pirsig inadvertently confirms the SOL (intellect as the S/O
> > distinction). From inside intellect the fundamental split is between  a
> > self and its world. If Arlo still is "conscious" from his fencing with
> > Platt and spots this I challenge him to explain it away

Andre:
> I was looking forward to a post of yours Bodvar...much is twitter of late.
> The 'self' is an intellectual pattern of value good for logging into your
> computer and getting to China (via a passport). 

One thing regarding the self issue. Pre-intellect (level) and present 
day non-intellect cultures had/has a sense of self as acute as intellect-
centered cultures, the idea is that intellect zoomed in on the 
SELF/WORLD (AKA subject/object) distinction AS EXISTENCE'S 
FUNDAMENT hence SOM. That's the point   

> Epistemically/ conventionally we need to exist, ontologically we are
> concepts (is this the correct way of interpreting this SOM
> stuff?)!!!!!!!!! 

SOM was the intellectual level before the Q-system was revealed. A 
bit complicated this but as SOM intellect's Self/World distinction (or 
S/O as we know it as) created its infamous "see-saw" that 
alternatively brings the subjective or the objective into focus. 
When in subjective mode everything is concepts, when in the 
objective mode concepts are just "hot air". Don't let yourself be fooled 
by this concept nonsense, it has nothing to do with the MOQ, IT'S 
WHAT MOQ DOES AWAY WITH.

> The Buddhist would make the distinction between
> 'conventional' and 'inherent' existence. I appreciate this and who am i
> to challenge or defy this understanding. I am but a speck of dust. It
> is a different way of experience. The former is static the latter is
> dynamic. 

OK, this may be so, I wish we one day would bring the discussion to 
the Oriental issue, namely Pirsig's assertion that they developed the 
intellectual level (the Upanishads period) before going on to some 
Quality-like stage.

> I am not sure Bodvar, but perhaps we are both experiencing the MoQ in a
> dynamic way, (and it should not be any other way but because of the
> latching things need to be halted...to give it time to not only sink in, 
> but also to grow). But not everybody feels this breath of fresh air in the
> same way as we do?!

Wise words. Some see the MOQ as some belated Zen-buddhist 
movement, some as a NewAge movement (perhaps the same thing) 
but it really turns circles round everything ever - um - conceived. 
Regarding the dynamic vs static way of experiencing the MOQ 
(Platt's and Anthony's) I'm a bit unsure. The MOQ is the 
dynamic/static lay-out and if we introduce a dynamic vs static way of 
perceiving it we re-introduce SOM's see-saw.


This is as far as I managed this time, you went on to become very 
deep so let me return when I understand it. But let me say I think you 
have "arrived".

Bodvar