[MD] ego vs self

[skutvik at online.no]

Ham, Platt,All

Sep 26. 

Platt had written: 

> > Maybe the problem between we Pirsigians and you is in our
> > understanding of "experience."  You say "experience is the
> > objective content of the conscious self" whereas Pirsig says
> > experience occurs "prior to intellectual abstractions."
> > In other words, take it one step before thoughts like
> > "conscious self" and "objective content." Even take it one
> > step before the thought, "experience."  As Huang Po said,
> > "Start thinking about it and you miss it." Or as one of my
> > favorites, Kafka, wrote:

This was the initial ZAMM deliberations when subjects and objects 
(also called "intellect") was the first and only static fall-out. Correct 
enough, but in the final MOQ much "experience" precedes intellect 
which BTW isn't abstractions, but the (value of the) concrete/abstract 
distinction (another S/O). "Thinking" is merely language internalized 
and language is from the social era and nothing is spoiled by it, rather 
a splendid tool to express the subtlest experience   .... IMO you know    

Ham replied:(to Platt's above)
 
> It's true that my understanding of "experience" is awareness of objective
> reality, whereas the Pirsigians  include awareness of Quality (Value) as
> "pre-intellectual.experience."  There's a logical reason for
> distinguishing sensibility from experience (objectification).

"Awareness of objective reality" is SOM's monster-platypus. Objective 
reality contained in the subjective mind! Are you completely unaware 
of this paradox that has bothered Western philosophy since SOM 
came to a head with Descartes, Berkeley the first who cried "foul play" 
and Pirsig's MOQ the first and only way out of  SOM's blind alley..

Yes, the "sensibility"experience" distinction is logical and known to all 
mankind (from the social level onwards)  but what's not so logical is 
appointing this distinction as fundamental - the SOM - and hence the 
paradoxes.

 As Bo has just stipulated:
> > 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 intellect is what divides the self from "its world", then experience of
> objective reality requires intellection.  

"Intellect" is no agent that divides, as I say above: the intellectual level 
IS the S/O distinction, what you hint to is intelligence - the ability to 
guide "data" through logical gates - which origin is biological and have 
been used by the levels in turn for their own purpose.   

> But, as you point out, "Pirsig says experience [the "Quality event"]
> occurs 'prior to intellectual abstractions'."  Therefore, awareness of
> Value is not an intellectual construct, not "objective", but some other
> kind of awareness.  I believe Pirsig also refers to value perception as
> "direct experience", which is somewhat confusing, considering that we
> commonly describe non-objective (proprietary) sensibility as "feeling"
> rather than "experience".  That's only a semantic distinction, however,
> which doesn't impugn the subjective "self". 

See my up above for Platt.

> But you suggest that I "take it one step before thoughts like 'conscious
> self' and 'objective content'."  This I cannot do.  My "conscious self" is
> not a "thought" to me: it IS me.  I suggest that you and your fellow
> Pirsigians want to deny this. 

These deliberation makes me break a sweat: Consciousness, self, 
awareness are all intellectual patterns, there's always an OBJECT for 
(subjective) consciousness. As said you never find anything about the 
"I" and/or consciousness in pre-intellect (level) texts. I know Ham 
despises this argument, but it's highly relevant.  

> And defining the 'I' (ego?) of existence as "interactive patterns" is
> your way of dismissing the subjective self.   My self may not "exist"
> as rocks and trees do, but it is my reality nonetheless.  If I were to
> dismiss it (as Descartes tried to do), I could not vouch for the
> existence of anything. 

Descartes dismissing the self!? He affirmed the self in his famous 
sentence..

Bodvar