From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 19:32:37 BST
Hi folks, i'm back from my trip.
This is a question I ponder a lot. I would say a person is a point of
consciousness, located morally in morality in what we call a person and
conscious of what that person would be conscious of, given its location in
morality. Moral patterns produce ideas of a surrounding outside world, and
at the same time the consciousness (and person) that "has" the idea,
according to the strength and quality of the patterns, as measured by all
the individual consciousnesses together. Ponderous?
>dmb says:
>As I understand it, Static patterns can't "respond directly" to DQ
What does respond to DQ then? What else is there?
>The mainstream Christian tradition puts a great deal of stress upon
>the individual's personal salvation and otherwise takes personhood quite
>seriously. Contrasted with the East, where there is no self, the difference
>is quite stark.
Mainstream Buddhism also puts a great deal of stress on personal "right"
behavior and personal attainment of Nirvana, which is attained in both east
and west when one realizes that there is no self and sees the sovereignity
of God. I think contrasting religions is a divisive activity. It's so much
more fruitful to see what they have in common.
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD What is a person?
>Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:23:01 -0600
>
>Sam and Paul and all MOQers,
>
>Sam said:
>To my mind, a person is a stable pattern of values existing at the fourth
>level, an 'autonomous
>individual' - ie one in whom there resides an independent response to
>Quality (DQ) which is not
>mediated through the previously existing static forms (the social level
>static latches). It is
>precisely the ability to respond directly to Quality, and therefore not to
>be 'controlled' - ie
>repeating the static social norms - which marks out the change in level
>from
>social to level 4.
>
>dmb says:
>As I understand it, Static patterns can't "respond directly" to DQ and it
>is
>not possible for there to be such a thing as intellect without the other
>three levels. As Paul pointed out, a fourth level person, by definition, is
>a forest of sq from all four levels. I think the transition from third to
>fourth level static values generally proceeds in a static fashion, when
>some
>kind of crisis is reached. When the problems of that level can't be solved
>at that level, when it becomes apparent that the next level is something we
>need, a little breakthrough occurs. Or something like that. In any case,
>the
>important point here is that intellect can't respond to DQ directly. An
>unmediated experience is a mystical experience and, as I understand it,
>this
>is a state where such static patterns have been put to sleep or otherwise
>clear out of the way.
>
>Sam said:
>In other words, our sense of self is not ultimate; it is potentially lost
>in
>'divine union'.
>(Although the Christian tradition would also want to claim some sort of
>ultimate reality to
>personhood; this is one of the key contrasts with Eastern religion, as I
>understand it).
>
>dmb says:
>Right. The mainstream Christian tradition puts a great deal of stress upon
>the individual's personal salvation and otherwise takes personhood quite
>seriously. Contrasted with the East, where there is no self, the difference
>is quite stark. But most of that is a cultural difference and the
>difference
>is softened by several degrees when we compare Buddhism and the more
>esoteric mystical tradition within Christianity. As I tried to point out in
>the "letter from Pirsig" thread, both the Buddha and the Christ can be seen
>as metaphors for the letting go of the self, of ego-consciousness, of
>intellect. Not to milk the joke, but I'd like to remind you that this is
>why
>they all die in the end.
>
>(Interesting note: A few months back I heard a radio interview with Richard
>Nisbett, who was talking about his book, "THE GEOGRAPHY OF THOUGHT: How
>Asians and Westerners Think Differently....and Why". The thing that has
>stuck in my mind was his observation that one of the main differences was
>the individuality of the West and that it exist on an almost perfect
>geographic continuum, so that San Fransisco and Los Angeles are at one
>extreme end and Toykyo is at the other. Funny that Zen has been so popular
>on the West Coast, huh?)
>
>Sam said:
> ...In other words, I think the 'dissolving' of identity, which is
>referred to in the
>great religious traditions, in various ways, is the transition between the
>fourth level pattern of
>values and DQ. Whereas I think that you (and Pirsig) see this dissolution
>of
>personality as being
>the transition between a level 3 stable pattern of values (the 'social
>self', or possibly the ego)
>and the realm of level 4. ...We just place that dissolution at different
>points on the scale.
>
>dmb says:
>Hmmm. No, I'm pretty sure Pirsig's idea of matches the great religious
>traditions and sees it as, not a transition between the 4th level and DQ,
>but a dissolution of all static patterns. You know, be a dead man and all
>that. The unmediated experience is one that lets go of whatever static
>patterns hold the self together. Its the ultimate emptying out of one's cup
>so that one is naked or transparent or something. So I think it doesn't
>matter which point of the scale, because the whole deal is supposed to go
>away for a while.
>
>Sam says:
>In other words, I think it is true and accurate to say that there is no
>'thing' - understood
>in SOM terms as a scientifically describable entity - which corresponds to
>the mind. However I do
>think that there is a stable pattern of values - a person in all their
>infinite variety and
>stability, of habits, language, culture and personality - which is both a
>source of independent
>judgement and open to dynamic evolution at a higher level than that of
>society, which can in fact go
>off on purposes of its own.
>
>dmb says:
>As a fellow Westerner I defininately know what you mean. Nothing is harder
>than giving up the sense of self. And most of the time it would be wildly
>immoral and irresponsible to do so. But, as I understand it, that sense of
>self is exactly the #1 obstacle to "enlightenment". That's why we must die,
>must be "born again" and all that. One of the reasons I liked the film LAST
>TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was that it showed the anguish involved in having to
>give up nothing more nor less than a "normal" life. The most tempting thing
>of all, the temptation that nearly compelled him off the cross was nothing
>more grandiose than a normal family life, with a house, a wife and
>children.
>Campbell describes this as the temptation of "the blandishments of the
>world". But if desire is the cause of all suffering and the goal is to
>extinguish desire and let go of all attachments, then surely the desire to
>have a normal life is to be extinquished too. Its radical, I know. But I
>think that's what it says.
>
>Thanks,
>dmb
>
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now
FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
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 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 19:35:34 BST