On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:45 PM, X Acto wrote: > Marsha: > I think the same approach can be taken towards freedom. First, there's the > ineffable, Ultimate freedom of following DQ. I believe this is what Dan is > pointing to when he presents RMP's quote "To the extent that one's behavior > is > controlled by static patterns of quality is without choice. But to the > extent > that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is > free." Second, there is the static, ego-based freedom that thinks itself > chooses between this or that. - Personally, I think that an event has > multiple > interconnected causes and conditions which in turn have multiple > interconnected > causes and conditions, &etc., &etc., &etc. It may be correct to think that > an > individual participates within the 'multiple causes and conditions', but to > say > WE CHOOSE is totally self-centered; it's illusion and not very useful. > > > > Ron: > well thats a well reasoned conclusion, but I think that the illusion "we > choose" > is more powerfull and better than > the illusion that we have no choice. > there are all sorts of things one can choose to change if one sets their mind > to > it > that they never knew were possible before.
Marsha: This understanding might not appeal to a "self" wanting to be in control. Many of the causes, conditions and interdependencies are not immediately available to ones recognition. ___ 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
