"Pretend you know more than you do" - Dogbert
Squad
I haven't disappeared but I got stuck again. Bodvar's SOQI^&A?
idea is up again, it seems to have some value, we really must have a proper
talk about it some time.
Rich agrees on the self-soul split, which isn't surprising seeing as I
nicked the idea from him in the first place. I'm struggling slightly with
the will (desire) and consciousness (awareness) aspects of the soul. Not
sure if you mean a division of the soul or you're just looking at it from
different angles. I would have said that they were all the same thing. To be
aware is to value (will, desire). Maybe that's what you mean anyway. Maybe
you're Right, but I have a history of problems with the concepts of
will and causation. The MOQ gets rid of the-self-as-subject - ie the Cartesian
editor in control of reality. If you take away the self-as-subject then there's
nothing left to "have" will. Pirsig fudges the free will question imo. ( see
http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9809/0034.html and
http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9809/0076.html). I appreciate that your
soul=will idea is proposing another kind of will - perhaps a kind of detached will
but then I think you're still proposing that the will * causes * events.
Or maybe you're not, but it
still arises out of the idea of soul=will. Doesn't it? Oh it's toughie.
We'll have to delay the nuptials until it's resolved.
I like soul=desire better.
If you'll recall my dynamic-static III post
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/lilasquad/9905/0040.html (it's quite near
the end) I attempted to say that we have to dig down into all these Massive
Metaphysical Assumptions in order to sort out the MOQ from the SOM.
Causation is one of them. Will is another. Space-time needs looking at too.
But it's all too much for this little post.
Meanwhile, on another level of reality, David is pursuing the self as four
levels idea, just as Pirsig did and, after studying his post, I feel a lot
clearer about the relationships between the layers and how the self arises
out of the lower levels.
"Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right direction, Phaedr
us' central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned toward
the static patterns themselves."
The human race has evolved through the four levels over time but humans also
evolve through the four layers as they grow up and I find it's easier to
look back at my life when I was a socially dominated creature rather
than imagine what it would have been like to live in the 19th century. The
social level kicks in at around 3-4 yrs, after the "terrible twos" struggle between biology
and society and before the battle between
society and the intellect in adolescence. During that time I believed
completely in the Catholic faith. It simply never occurred to me not to, any
more than it occured to me not to believe in the sky or the sea. I believed
it because that was what I was told. Social creatures don't think, they
follow. Which is just as well because we would never put in the hours to
learn to read or write or learn maths if we weren't told to by someone else.
Kids left to grow up "naturally" may be very creative, but would they ever
do their homework? Would they ever learn to plan and organize? Express
themselves rationally? If we didn't go through that period of socialization
the intellect would never emerge. It is only through socialization that we
learn to be intellectual and hence see ourselves as "selfs" - distinct
autonomous entities responsible for our own actions. So, the intellectual level
IS a social pattern, it's learned behavior. Just as the social level IS a
biological pattern and the biological level IS an inorganic pattern.
And if a is contained in b, b is contained in c, and c in d, then a must be
contained within d. As Pirsig says, patterns of mind are contained within
matter and patterns of matter are contained within mind.
"The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of
his own face" -William Thackeray
"I't's your questions that make me who I am. If you think I'm an angel then that's what I am. If yo
u think I'm a whore then that's what I am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your mind abou
t me then I change too."
I think this mirrors business is straightforward enough. What Lila is saying is that you can't *obj
ectively* define another person because you'll only ever see those parts of them that your static p
atterns allow you to. For example a person of another race or sex may be smarter or more skilled th
an you are, but because your static patterns have previously decided that isn't possible, you don't
see it. Happens all the time.
And not only that, but the whole world, as you see it, is filtered through your static patterns. Yo
u look out at the world and your own patterns stare back at you ... like a mirror.
We've taken this month's topic a lot further than I thought we would. As usual we've thrown up even
more questions than answers but still I feel there's been progress. Thanks to everyone who's poste
d. I've learned something from them all.
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:47 GMT