Hello everyone
John Beasley wrote:
>What follows was composed as a response to the discussion of self and soul
in the MOQ in
>the LS forum, but rejected as being off the topic. I am sufficiently
intrigued by Julian Jaynes
>exploration of the emergence of the notion of soul in Greek thought, which
pushes back
>Pirsig's own exploration of the roots of SOM, and links this to the
development of
>consciousness of self, to place this in the alternative forum rather than
attempt to rewrite it:-
Hi John
Nice to hear from you again! And isn't it great to have a forum like
moq_discuss... Diana and Horse and others should really be commended on
providing a Quality site where all MOQ ideas can be discussed no matter how
irrelevant they seem.
Now since you were originally writing to the LS discussion group I looked up
the topic of the month and found:
Is there a soul or self? If so, how does it fit into the MOQ?
Since I do not belong to our sister forum I will attempt an answer here...
traditionally it is held that the soul is immortal and what we think of as
self is mortal and disappears at death while the soul goes on. So it would
seem from the classical point of view that soul might be equivilant to some
ethereal forever while self ceases be when awareness of self ceases. and
these two concepts, soul and self, are not the same.
The MOQ seems to state that self exists only as social and intellect static
latchings valueing preconditions of the inorganic and biological levels,
taken as a whole, along with undefinable Dynamic Quality.
As far as Jaynes, recent research into the workings of the human brain seem
to indicate a much
higher level of complexity than anticipated by researchers in the 70s and
80s. I don't think this negates Julian Jaynes' work however we must realize
that left-brain/right-brain interactions depend on (value the precondition
of) the whole organism AND its environment. "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is a wonderfully compelling book and I
used quotes from it extensively in one of my papers on my website last year.
Since then, however, in doing more reading and pondering on the subject I
have come to see that left-brain/right-brain is a classical way of
simplifying the complexity of quantum action. There is much value in Jaynes'
writings but it is also pretty apparent to me that it just barely scratches
the surface... it is a beginning though?
>
>I look forward to hearing more from Bo on how we escape the quandry of
becoming "leaves
>in a MOQ storm" - I love the metaphor. However I must take issue with his
words "official
>MOQ teaching". I simply can't subscribe to any top down imposition of
dogma, MOQ or
>otherwise. I value Pirsig's ideas very highly or I wouldn't be involved
here, but I put my own
>
>
>experience and reflection ahead of any official line. For sure I will often
be wrong, or
>misguided, but the alternative is unthinkable. Following gurus is rightly
criticised by my
>favourite mystics, who include the two Krishnamurtis and John Wren-Lewis.
Lacking their
>experiences I can only report their views in this case.
Glove:
I believe the quest for principles or axioms is an attempt at defining
"official MOQ teachings" and like John I am leery of such. Still, it sure
seems as though it would be
helpful to have certain unambiguous guidelines to the MOQ, unassailable
truths, if you will. But if my time here with the discussion group has
taught me anything, it is that this is asking the impossible. Even when
there is a general concensus in the discussion group, there always seems to
be those who disagree
with it... usually me. :) But perhaps that is just the nature of the beast.
>
>Robert comes very close to my concerns and while I don't remember his
earlier proposal for
>a metaphysics dividing reality into experiential quality and attentive
self, it seems a good
>debating point for me. Both terms are extremely slippery, though, and I
guess we can only
>grapple with what is beyond language and concepts through the media of
language and
>concepts that must embody any metaphysics. A good metaphor could be worth a
thousand
>words here.
>
>I do like your point, Robert, that "the 'Self" IS the unity of our
experiences". It's pretty
>abstract, but I think worth hanging onto. That unity is itself worthy of
note, and stands apart
>from the actual experience. It also seems to me that without a self there
is no way of
>explaining the emergence of static quality, particularly when we look at
the highest level of
>intellectual static quality, and at that other form of quality which says
some books, paintings
>etc are better than others.
Glove:
According to Julian Jaynes, the "self" as we know it to be did not exist
prior to a few thousand years ago. Yet certainly static quality still
existed, did it not? That's why I like Doug Renselle's axiom stating that:
"Primal or proemial creation in no way depends on man or any other
sentient."
If the self as subjective "me" did not exist we are forced into using such
terms as "animal consciousness" and the like, where self is (apparently) not
differeniated from not-self. Sounds like we are then treading suspiciously
close to mysticism. But then, does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST