Hi Ham,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, Mark --
>
>
> Evidently you didn't see the connection between the 'Hiddenness' essay and
> my recent post on Free Will, thereby missing my point. (I had wanted to
> combine the two, but realized it would exceed the word limit.)
[Mark]
You are probably right, I do not recall that essay, so thanks for the
recap. I have kind of stayed out of the free will one, since I don't
think I can contribute much new. I'm sure that many are breathing a
sigh of relief.
>
> Quite simply, the life-experience of a human being is a proprietary
> manifestation of the essential Source as differentiated Value. The
> realization, actualization, and willful interpretation of Value is the
> cognizant awareness of a free agent. So that the individual is free to
> experience this manifestation without bias, and exercise choices in
> accordance with his/her value-sensibility, the cognizant self must be
> autonomous, that is, a subjective entity independent of the Source. To
> ensure absolute independence and autonomy, direct knowledge of the Source is
> inaccessible ("hidden") from valuistic experience.
>
[Mark]
This sounds good. I suppose it could be argued that bias may intrude,
but as you say, there could be a proprietary sensibility. One has to
start somewhere, and the Contingency Theory of Buddhism may not work
for everybody, I imagine. So autonomousness or independence could
work if used appropriately. And yes, I understand what you mean by
Separation, we have discussed this in the past. As I have stated,
such separation is not essential and is somewhat existential. I would
be interested to hear how the theory of the "ego" fits in with your
ontology. I am sure you touched on this on your site which I will get
back to sometime.
>[Ham]
> Existence is Value differentiated by an autonomous agent. The 'will to
> action' is the exercise of free choice in accordance with one's
> value-sensibility within the space/time parameters of existential reality.
[Mark]
My question has always been, where does this autonomous agent begin.
Being a biologist, I tend to subdivide this body of ours, and I do not
see any physical delineation of this sovereignty. I do see Will as
important, but it is more a window into this world; the frame of such
window is our body. I do not have a firm grasp of existential
reality, and it means many things to me.
>
> Have we actually achieved congruence on this issue? If so, it will be a
> first time for me.
> (Of course, our agreement will have no meaning to the Qualityland folks who
> don't acknowledge selfness and regard all experience as predetermined
> patterns of an all-controlling but undefinable source.)
[Mark]
Perhaps I am thinking more like you, or you more like me. Chances are
that it is the former since I am very suggestible. Of course, the
devil is in the details, but perhaps general congruence is possible.
There are many who make up the Qualityland population, so I cannot
speak for them. I do not think the box you put us all in is quite
accurate. But, I enjoy being provocative as well, it draws response.
>
Freely determined to be yours,
Mark
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
