Hi 8-ball, I can't make sense of what you say here since there is no individual level in the MOQ any more than there is an emotional level as Joe keeps talking about. I assume you mean the social level when you refer to the Societal level, but then your Societal level doesn't really sound like what Pirsig was talking about.
Best, Steve On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 3:54 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Mr. 8, or can I call you 1? > [Mark] > 8-ball is fine >> >> >> >>> Hi Steve, if I may: >> >> Yes, you may. > [Mark] > Thank you dear sir. >> >> >>> [Mark] >>> While all has been said about Free-will, it is important to place the >>> discussion in MoQ format. The collection of patterns is not different >>> from the codependent arising that Buddha subscribes to. Now, Buddha >>> gets around this concerning free-will, but I will not go into detail >>> here. >>> >>> More importantly, you are pointing to a "you" or "I" which is not well >>> defined. What is the "I" that has free-will? We can certainly point >>> to an "I", but it gets messy when we put it to words. >> > [Steve] >> Not I. I have said that the MOQ does not posit an extra-added >> ingredient above and beyond the patterns of value and the possibility >> for patterns to change that are collectively referred to as "I" about >> which it could possibly make any sense to ask, "do I have free will?" >> This question gets dissolved in the MOQ to the extent that it needs to >> be unasked or at least reformulated. This question at classically >> asked presupposes that there is such a thing as "I" that has important >> ontological status that transcends those patterns of value to which it >> also refers. The MOQ makes no such fundamental postulate. > > [Mark] > Noted. You are correct that the "I" disappears at the individual > level, just like the atom disappears at the atomic level. That is, an > atom has no "sense" what an atom is. > > This is the beauty of the levels. At the Societal Level, the "I" > exists. In fact it is pointed to all the time in this forum, ("I" > this, "I" that). We speak of it all the time in highly logical > arguments. The Societal Level imparts the "I" with free will. I do > believe that MoQ clearly makes this apparent. In order for the > societal level to exist, free will is necessary. If you state that it > does not exist at the individual level, that is fine, but it still > exists. I suggest you apply what you know about the Societal Level, > and take a look at free will. You will find that it does (and has to) > indeed exist. > >>[Steve] >> Instead, in MOQ terns we can reformulate the question where "I" could >> refer to the static patterns (small self in Zen terms) or the "I" >> could refer to the capacity for change, emptiness, the nothingness >> that is left when we subtract all the static patterns that is also the >> generator and sustainer and destroyer of those patterns (big Self in >> Zen terms). That's what Pirsig did with the question. > > [Mark] > Here you are mistaking the individual level for the Societal level. > At the Societal level, society does not exist, it can't. For the > Societal Level, such a thing is Nothingness. We understand the sense > of "I" through "other", not as a personal enlightenment. If one is > alone (forever) there is no "I". Static patterns are indeed felt at > the individual levels, but are also an impingement of the Societal > level. If there were not need for communication, there would be no > naming of things. > > If you are subscribing to the Ego above with Self, then it is much > more direct than you are playing it. Above the Ego is the Super Ego > (Societal) and below it is the Id, which is the individual level. > > [Steve] > We can identify >> with our current patterns of preferences and the extent to which we do >> so we are not free. We are a slave to our preferences. Rather we ARE >> our preferences. Or we can identify with the capacity to generate, >> sustain, or destroy existing patterns in favor of (we hope) new and >> better ones. To the extent we do we are free. Cultivating practices >> such as meditation that help us be open to change, which is the death >> and rebirth of small self as old patterns evolve into new patterns, is >> striving to be more free from the bondage of current value patterns >> that may be improved. If we succeed in improving them, we still ought >> not identify with the new and improved small self but rather with >> improvement itself. That is, if we want to be more free. >> > [Mark] > Here you claim that we are witnesses, which I have heard (and used > before, but in a different sense). This is indeed true if we remain > "asleep" ( a term which I think this is more accurate than "dead"). > Indeed, when we "wake up" (reborn in your vernacular), all the static > patterns disappear. This is Zen (and the other two kinds of > Buddhism). There is no real bondage to patterns, and much of these > static attibutes are a necessary aspect of the Societal Level. It > uses such things to exist, in the same way we use our individual cells > to exist. That is, it relies on Free Will. Make no mistake about > that. > > Indeed, Quality is an active noun, much as you are using > "Improvementation". If we want to be free through MoQ, we need to > pay attention to the levels and their demarcation. We can identify > with anything we want to once we are "free" or awake, even free-will. > This may sound contradictory to your view, but it is so. There seems > to be a sense of running away from, or destroying, which is not where > the MoQ takes one. Pirsig himself exists perfectly well in the > classic and romantic. There is no destruction (Phaedrus has not > remained destroyed, and Pirsig is alive and well), only co-mingling > and synergism. There is nothing destructive about Zen, no matter what > others may say. > > > Hope this makes sense to you dear friend. 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
