ROGER EXPLORES THE SELF
I would like to explore and comment on the issue of self from various angles
that have arisen this month, and end with some conclusions of my own.
BALANCED SELF
A central theme of Pirsig's is BALANCE. David B. explained that in the MOQ
that regardless what the self is, that a *high quality* self involves
balance. I agree strongly, and will try to keep this concept in mind
throughout. Intellect AND mysticism. Static AND dynamic, Classical and
Romantic, Biological AND Social, Confucian AND Taoist, West AND East,
Conceptual AND Grounded, Introspective AND Fatherly, Illusory AND Real..
SOUL SELF
Denis tried valiently to define SOUL as the "animating principle of life and
thought," and as the "mystical principle behind consciousness." I would
prefer not to follow him there. It seems convenient to label everything we
can't explain as 'DQ". I offer that maybe we can't explain it because the
whole topic of SOUL is gibberish.
EVOLUTIONARY VALUE OF SELF
I agree with him though on the survival strength of the concept of SELF.
Once you can conceptualize a SELF, the inate biological defense mechanisms
can be extended to protect your social and intellectual patterns. Susan
Blackmore gives a controversial but persuasive argument on the evolutionary
value of a SELF concept in her recent book "The Meme Machine."
As a corporate executive who believes the self is a somewhat illusory or
limiting concept, I can speak from personal experience that there is a strong
social value to an egotistical self. Seeing through the veil may have
spiritual value, but it is not a quality pattern within a large hierarchical
social system. (Though it is not necessarily disfunctional either).
>From another viewpoint, I just watched "The Last Emperor", which profiled the
making and breaking of the final ruler of China. I was struck by the extent
of the deliberateness and care taken in the creation of egotistical tyrants.
I suspect huge social organizations can gain considerable evolutionary and
survival value from this type of leadership (to clarify again, I am not
saying it is the only or even the best leadership pattern of value).
Another example of the value of the extended SELF pattern is our propensity
to fight vehemently to protect our ideas. We actually had heated arguments
on the MD last month on the topic of child care. People associate their
intellectual patterns and thoughts with themselves.
THE MEMETIC SELF
Susan Blackmore believes the subject/object concept is the break-through that
allowed the social and intellectual memes of copying others' behavior to
exist. You cannot copy or model complex, non-innate behavior without a SELF
and an OTHER concept. Copying an action as simple as throwing a rock requires
the ability to objectify the thrower, and to mentally envision your SELF in
his place. Despite myths to the contrary, examples of animals copying
non-innate behavior are extremely rare.
Bo recently wrote "neither Dawkins or Blackmore have the faintest resemblance
to the MOQ." I believe this is an overstatement. In fact , I see numerous
parallels in memetics specifically to Bodvar's SOLAQI concept.
For example, the genotype and phenotype concepts of Memetics resemble the
MOQ's biological patterns. The term memes itself can be used almost
interchangeably with evolutionary social and intellectual patterns. Another
similarity is Blackmore's view of the SELF. Like James and Pirsig, she
inspects the nature of the SELF and suggests that it is a memetic
abstraction. She comes to the conclusion that reality is direct, unfiltered
experience (ie DQ). She then recommends going beyond subject/object patterns
and embracing pure experience. I found the correlations of Memetics and the
MOQ striking. Of course, I disagree with several of her ideas too, and I
could go on for hours how the two theories differ.
WILLIAM JAMES' SELF
Robert discussed James' version of the self. Although I agree with the
quotes and interpretations, I felt that Robert charted his own course at the
end of the post. My summary of James is that the SELF is a pattern derived of
experience. Using our terms, I believe James would illustrate reality and
the subject/object duality as:
Reality/DQ/Experience
/ \
/ \
ABSTRACTION #1 ABSTRACTION #2
The pattern of a The pattern of a
consistent external consistent internal
world self/consciousness
James saw consciousness/self and the external world as two conceptual
perspectives of experience. He explains the subject/object duality not as a
division of experience, but as experience counted twice.......from two
perspectives. The "apple-sense" is counted first as an external apple that
must really be "out there," and second as an internal apple thought. The
external apple is customarily considered not part of the self, while the
thought of an apple is.
THE NON-EXISTING SELF
Recently, Diana thoroughly outlined the MOQ's position on the SELF. Though
as with my comments on Robert Stillwell's post, I disagree with her ending
spin on the issue. She clarifies, and I agree, that Pirsig rejects an
"autonomous self", and that he describes the SELF as a software reality not a
hardware reality. But then she expresses her reservations with this view and
states that "it's another thing entirely to decide that I don't exist."
I think this statement goes too far. Software exists. An intellectual
concept is just as real as a material pattern (and just as illusory). All
patterns or concepts are derived from direct experience, or DQ. David B. was
right on target when he explained that subjects and objects are "real but not
primary." Similar to Hiroshima, the SELF may not be primary, but both are
quite real. (As for autonomy, can anything be considered autonomous in the
MOQ where value creates the subject/object relationship and where that
without value doesn't exist?)
THE BINDING ESSENCE OF SELF
Diana also wrote the following in regards to the SELF: "There still must be
some force or essence that holds these patterns together." And she suggests
the MOQ needs more explanation.
I think Pirsig is pretty clear on what the essence that holds patterns
together is....Quality. And he clarifies that Quality is an event, not a
thing. It is pure pre-subjective/objective experience.
The conventional self concept is like a wave. And like waves, "we" are not
comprised of substance, but of force. Water waves are derived concepts from a
pattern of experience of inorganic value forces. We are waves derived from
patterns of experience of value forces of all four levels. But like waves of
the ocean, when we crash into the shore, that particular set of patterns that
we call our SELVES will dissipate. Quality goes on in a continuous dance of
new patterns.
THE UNLIMITED SELF
To equate ourselves with the static construct of the SELF may serve
evolutionary value on a biological, social and even intellectual level.
Certainly, it is difficult to let the SELF concept go.
But the MOQ does not lead to a limitation of the SELF, it leads to a
broadening of the SELF. By going beyond the illusory, secondary reality of
the autonomous SELF to the infinite unity of experience. Why be the wave when
we can expand ourselves to the entire ocean? Why be the little editor behind
a pair of eyeballs, when you can be the entire experienced universe? Even
grander, why not just be the entire universe of pure experience?
Roger
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:47 GMT