Dear Squad
This piece was written Saturday when there - at my end - were no
messages, but now on Sunday morning I see that many have gone
on on the clone thread, so this is as usually outdated, yet....
First a little speech. I have sensed a certain wary tone of late;
everybody tip-toeing not to provoke each other, but I - for one - is
not the least sensitive to criticism, my blowout over at the MD at
Struan was for his personal attack on Pirsig ....where he
falsely...etc and the threatening ...if anyone dared....etc. tone.
This forum is formed to explore reality in the MOQ light and
if someone finds it's completely wrong this is not the place to be,
but we shouldn't be all toothless regarding our respective views on
the MOQ.
********
The clone thread has left if it is feasible and turned into an
inquiry of identity or self in a MOQ context. Rightly so because this
issue has lain like an undetonated bomb ever since the beginning of
our discussion. We simply must come to a consensus about it and
when/if an agreement is reached it will be nailed up at the billboard
with mile high letters. The posts up till now has been groping, but
very relevant for instance does ..............................
ROGER'S
story about the teleporting experience, highlight the issue: why was
it the "real" Roger that got removed from the red chair to the blue
one? Even if he had put it the other way round, the quandary would
have remained just as acute: there is always this UNITY to
consciousness. Even if we contemplate a perfect cloning experiment,
we can't even conceive another me sharing MY consciousness.
ROBERT (PIRSIG)
Is not very accurate on this point. He says that Lila Blewitt is a
jungle of the four static levels, but what overarching entity is it
that "feels that she is biological Lila, social Lila and intellectual
Lila? Is it a dynamic quality "fallout"? An interpretation of this
has been........
MY
position. It goes like this: Circumstances decides what level is in
focus at any time. Most often intellectual '!' is, but bodily
demands/sensations may easily shift focus to biological 'I'
as will whatever cmmon cause i identify with, focus
my social 'I'. What "focus" in the inorganic level is like I have not
figured out, but call it - tentatively - "unconsciousness". What
circumstances are??? It is EXPERIENCE, another word for Quality. This
view sort of rejects the self in the subject-object (soul) sense,
but I feel that ...................
MAGNUS AND BRUCE
aren't happy with this and sees the unity of consciousness as proof
for something - not only outside static, but even - "beyond" dynamic
quality as the unifying principle. "Consciousness can't be in two
places simultaneously" Magnus says, while Bruce says: " I am I,
uniquely....something that to me sounds like assertions of an
identity/self that can't be fitted into the MOQ frame: a soul-like
entity that may "survive" - or has to be saved - from bodily
death. At least it made ..................
DAVID
wince and say: "I'll have to say that Bruce's .......etc." Something
that I wholeheartedly join him in. I am not sure of David's attitude
to the Magnus/Bruce "quantum self" idea, but I sense that he (too)
finds it irreconcilable to the basic MOQ tenet. I will not start an
attack on Danah Zohar quantum stuff, but it can't be outside the
STATIC realm. Not below (as Doug Renselle's inscrutable tables
indicate) nor can it be above in any conceivable sense. It's
where inorganic value borders to dynamic chaos.
To return to Bruce as an example. Isn't the "I am I, uniquely" the
isolation of intellect from the rest of existence, known as the
"fall myth"? And isn't the MOQ is a relief from ALL THAT? In its
light everything is turned inside out: Q-intellect is a "mere" static
level, not any objective godlike truth beyond. This makes "the fall"
good again; heals the wound that SOM has inflicted? I ask these
questions for what is the MOQ if it not rewrites EVERYTHING? It
is so trite to return to the personal identity notion: the subject
homunculus inside our brain monitoring the objective reality.
What about braking out seeing the q-levels as common - not
subjective. When we SENSE we sense what all existence sense; when we
feel (emotions) it's the value of the whole. The intellect's
experience is no less any retreat into isolation, but the ability of
artificial/abstract withdrawal to a stance to be able to see
clearer.....but NOT in any SOM sense.
About the starting point: the unity of consciousness that somehow -
to somebody - seems to contradict the Quality idea itself, I ask this
counter-question: How can it be otherwise? Without focus there would
be no experience. An awareness smeared out over all existence would
be equal to awareness of nothing.
Phew, have I brought any clarity or confounded the matter another
notch? Give me h...if needed, but please "focus" on the identity
issue, we only have a short month at our disposal.
Bodvar
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT