Re: LS PROGRAM: MOQ and Self

From: Mary (mwittler@geocities.com)
Date: Fri Jul 23 1999 - 06:23:53 BST


Hi Horse and Squad,

I'm hopelessly behind in my reading with no chance of catching up, so this may
have already been pointed out somewhere amongst the long list of posts I've yet
to read. But, Horse, I've found jewels in this post of yours from the 14th.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 7:05 PM

> As with a subject/object distinction and language, the terms 'I'
> and 'You' and 'It' still appear to have meaning. But we're so
> thoroughly immersed in these terms that there is no escape without
> resorting to a completely different language - which may come. But
> as Pirsig has stated and I put in my last post:
> " Like 'substance', they can be used as long as it is remembered
> that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some
> independent reality of their own."

> When the
> coherence of these patterns is destroyed or dissolved, the process of
> death begins. I would have thought that the destruction/dissotution
> process starts with DQ, then the Intellectual/Social patterns then the
> biological patterns and finally the Inorganic patterns until there is no
> trace of what was formerly coherent and experiencing patterns. I
> don't believe that it is possible to reconstruct those patterns or that
> they will somehow re-appear. Like Pirsig's Chemistry professor you
> can't re-do what has been undone.

> A stone is as real as a moral right is as real as
> a 'ME'.

> As far as I can see, the idea of self, in terms of the MOQ, is a static
> 'reality' not a dynamic one and any 'logical explanation' is a static
> intellectual pattern. But this intellectual pattern is the only one that is
> likely to make sense as, by definition, the dynamic reality is the
> conceptually unknown.

I can't think of anything more to add.

Best wishes,
Mary

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:47 GMT