From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 08:35:49 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Sam Norton" < >
>Reply-To:
>To: < >
>Subject: Re: MD Self
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:37:32 -0000
>
>I'm happy with Pirsig's description of the Self as a stable pattern of
>values. I would want to break
>that description down in the following way:
>
>- we have patterns of value which are biological in character - our
>physical characteristics, but
>also some appetites and physical processes (eg hunger, sexual desire,
>respiration, heartbeat,
>physiognomy etc);
>- we have patterns of value which are social in nature - primarily our
>language, our customary
>habits (how to shake hands or rub noses etc), but also some socially
>intepreted biological patterns,
>eg those relating to dominance (bowing before the queen, not meeting the
>eyes of a superior). I
>interpret the 'ego' as being that set of patterns which are social in
>character and concerned with
>the preservation of social level values, most especially status within the
>group;
>- we have patterns of value which are of a higher level. These are commonly
>called 'intellectual',
>but as you've probably gathered by now I don't think that is an adequate
>description of them. But
>these are patterns which are developed in order to control the social level
>and are not bound by
>them. I would interpret these as analogous to what the Christian tradition
>calls the soul, or what
>Aristotle calls the Anima - they are what animate and guide us as unique
>individuals, and they are
>the most important elements of our whole 'person' (which is the composite
>of all these levels and
>patterns).
>
>So, for example, when Christ says 'what does it profit a man if he gain the
>whole world and lose his
>own soul', I would translate that into MoQese as 'what Quality is there in
>amassing social level
>patterns if it means that the fourth level patterns are destroyed'? Or,
>what's the point in
>maximising your self when you lose contact with the Self? (I would
>interpret little self and big
>self as a 3rd/4th level transition)
Hi Sam
I like your example; Matthew 16:26 is a favorite of mine too. According to
my Scofield Reference Bible (King James version), "world" comes from the
Greek "kosmos," which translates as order, arrangement, and organized
humanity, such as families, tribes and nations. In the MOQ, "to gain the
world" would translate into celebrity, fame and fortune, social values. So I
agree with you there.
As far as "soul" goes, there are several contexts in which the word can be
used, so I took the liberty of looking it up in the dictionary:
#1 The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties
of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
#2 The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the
body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
#3 The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
#4 A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
#5 The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this
network... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin
Kalb).
#6 A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a
personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
#7 A person's emotional or moral nature: “An actor is... often a soul which
wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).
#8 A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African
Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion,
and music.
#9 A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an
artist.
(Dictionary.com)
I found this in the Copleston annotations on Anthony McWatt's website:
“In the MOQ there is no soul, except as a literary expression.” (Robert
Pirsig)
So according to the MOQ, definitions #2 and #3 are out. It's possible Jesus
may have been referring to one of those definitions, but I am sure He didn't
have definitions #4, 6, 7, 8, or 9 in mind. That leaves a commonality with
definitions #1 and #5 .
#1 might translate to the intellectual level. In my opinion, though, Jesus
is talking about #5, which points to something deeper, especially in light
of the two preceding verses:
Then said Jesus onto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save
his life will lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake will
find it. (Matthew 16:24,25)
i think it's possible Jesus is talking "Big self, small self" here, but I
also think you'll find Big self pertains to Dynamic Quality, not the
intellectual level, and small self pertains to the person.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
Hello everyone
>From: "Sam Norton" < >
>Reply-To:
>To: < >
>Subject: Re: MD Self
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:37:32 -0000
>
>I'm happy with Pirsig's description of the Self as a stable pattern of
>values. I would want to break
>that description down in the following way:
>
>- we have patterns of value which are biological in character - our
>physical characteristics, but
>also some appetites and physical processes (eg hunger, sexual desire,
>respiration, heartbeat,
>physiognomy etc);
>- we have patterns of value which are social in nature - primarily our
>language, our customary
>habits (how to shake hands or rub noses etc), but also some socially
>intepreted biological patterns,
>eg those relating to dominance (bowing before the queen, not meeting the
>eyes of a superior). I
>interpret the 'ego' as being that set of patterns which are social in
>character and concerned with
>the preservation of social level values, most especially status within the
>group;
>- we have patterns of value which are of a higher level. These are commonly
>called 'intellectual',
>but as you've probably gathered by now I don't think that is an adequate
>description of them. But
>these are patterns which are developed in order to control the social level
>and are not bound by
>them. I would interpret these as analogous to what the Christian tradition
>calls the soul, or what
>Aristotle calls the Anima - they are what animate and guide us as unique
>individuals, and they are
>the most important elements of our whole 'person' (which is the composite
>of all these levels and
>patterns).
>
>So, for example, when Christ says 'what does it profit a man if he gain the
>whole world and lose his
>own soul', I would translate that into MoQese as 'what Quality is there in
>amassing social level
>patterns if it means that the fourth level patterns are destroyed'? Or,
>what's the point in
>maximising your self when you lose contact with the Self? (I would
>interpret little self and big
>self as a 3rd/4th level transition)
Hi Sam
According to my Scofield Reference Bible, "world" comes from the Greek word
"kosmos" which translates as order, arrangement, and organized humanity,
such as families, tribes and nations. In the MOQ, "to gain the world" would
translate into celebrity, fame and fortune, social values. So I agree with
you there.
As far as "soul" goes, I'm sure we agree there are several contexts in which
the word can be used, so I took the liberty of looking it up in the
dictionary:
#1 The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties
of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
#2 The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the
body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
#3 The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
#4 A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
#5 The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this
network... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin
Kalb).
#6 A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a
personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
#7 A person's emotional or moral nature: “An actor is... often a soul which
wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).
#8 A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African
Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion,
and music.
#9 A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an
artist.
I found this in the Copleston annotations on Anthony McWatt's website:
“In the MOQ there is no soul, except as a literary expression.” (Robert
Pirsig)
So according to the MOQ, definitions #2 and #3 are out. It's possible Jesus
may have been referring to one of those definitions, but I am sure He didn't
have definitions #4, 6, 7, 8, or 9 in mind. That leaves a commonality with
definitions #1 and #5 ; #1 might translate to the intellectual level, though
in my opinion, Jesus is talking about #5, which points to something deeper.
I think you'll find Big self pertains to Dynamic Quality, not the
intellectual level, and small self pertains to the person.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
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 -
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 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 08:53:39 GMT