From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 10:54:46 GMT
Hi all,
In my recent 'long' post in this thread, I said the following:
> Now, an assumption lying behind this is that there is no 'thing' in the MoQ which corresponds to
> what we would normally describe as a 'person', ie when we think of a person - Jane Doe - that
which
> we call 'Jane Doe' can be more accurately characterised by the breaking down of that
conglomeration
> of patterns of values into the constituent parts (I think Pirsig at one point talks about people
> being 'forests' of patterns of value). [I've also just had a quick rummage in Lila to find where
he
> discusses the question of 'self' and 'identity' more explicitly, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps
> it's in one of his other papers - can anyone point me to it?)
I think this assumption is somewhat mistaken - having now done the rummaging that I referred to.
It's always refreshing to go back to RMP himself; I feel sometimes that I slip in to thinking that
what people in this forum say is RMP's view is in fact RMP's view. I should know better. Anyhow,
some extracts from Lila's Child:
Ann 29: "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a "self" that is independent of
inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no "self" that contains these
patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and
scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small self." Small self is the
patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality."; with follow up annotation (p 506): "...the big self invents
intelletual patterns that invent the small self and that collection of small selves known as 'we'."
Ann 77: "It's important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard "the individual"
as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If you start assigning a concrete reality
to it, you will find yourself in a philosophic quandary."
Ann 130: "The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any metaphysics.
Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there
are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or
"individual" the central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it
is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. I think that if you
identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing else you are taking an unusual position that may
need some defending."; with follow up annotation (p 534) "The Buddhists would say it is certainly
central to a concept of reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality itself.
Enlightenment involves getting rid of the concept of "I" (small self) and seeing the reality in
which the small self is absent (big self)."
Now it would seem from this that RMP does *not* see 'person' as an epiphenomenal term. In Ann 130
above he seems (to me) to be _contrasting_ the MoQ with Buddhism and science, and says that the 'I'
or the 'self' is "a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending DQ". In other words, there
is a "thing" (ie pattern of value) which corresponds to what we mean by 'person'.
However, my initial concern still holds, perhaps a fortiori, for RMP also says, p535, "A person who
holds an idea is a social entity, no matter what ideas he holds. The ideas he holds are an
intellectual entity, no matter who holds them."
So it remains the case, so far as I can tell, that the worst thing about 9/11 was the loss of the
ideas, not the loss of the people who held the ideas. (Or, to phrase that in a slightly contentious
manner, the loss of the ideas that a person holds in their head is a worse loss than the loss of the
person themselves. So it's better to be dead than retarded. At least, I think that's what the
implication is....)
Regards to all
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 10:56:28 GMT