RE: MD New Level of Thinking

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 01:09:10 GMT

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    DMB,

    > Scott said:
    > ...In Pirsig, DQ is treated as a force from outside of ourselves to which
    we
    > are to respond, and to which we are to transcend. ...This does not mean
    that
    > Pirsig is "all wrong". It just means that the MOQ as it is now is
    inadequate
    > as a basis for a discussion of the self. ...If you want to bolster your
    > case, show me something from the MOQ that sounds like 'self-identity of
    > absolute contradictories', in particular as a characterization of the
    self.
    >
    > dmb replies:
    > DQ is a force outside ourselves? NO! As Pirsig says, in the quote posted
    > repeatedly in recent weeks, DQ is the big Self and SQ is the small self.
    Is
    > that contradictory enough for you, bonehead? That'll be your new
    nick-name.
    >
    > Just kidding. I'm actually grateful that you at least tried. But I'm still
    > convinced that you have a serious reading comprehension problem...
    >
    > Lila's Child, Annotation 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."

    Where's the identity? I see nothing of the form: Big self (or DQ) is not
    other than small self (or SQ), small self is not other than big self. Where
    is a formulation like: the self is the contradictory identity of DQ and SQ?
    Instead, the MOQ says that the self is just SQ, but then there is also this
    big self, which is DQ.

    You keep making your points by dishing out Mysticism 101 stuff. The
    "big/small self" distinction is ok to start with, but on further critique
    is found wanting. Also, you seem to believe that there is but one
    philosophical mysticism. A first exploration of Buddhism will find this
    kind of "big self/small self" and "pure experience" talk. It's still too
    dualistic. A deeper one will find something more like the later Nishida.

    - Scott

    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 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 02:17:06 GMT