Hi Steve, Craig, others,
We have moved on to causality as a part of determinism (or not). That
is the temporal or "domino" sequence of events which describe our
reality. I have read in this thread that the "I disappears at the
individual human consciousness. I also stated that the "I" appears in
the Social Level (but will leave that for another time).
The concept of the "I" disappearing can also be used in the cause
effect paradigm. We can say that the personal "I" disappears because
it can be relegated to earlier causative principles and reduced to
co-dependent arising. In this way, it can be considered to "exist" at
the interface of the variety of arisings that delineate it. It
requires the conflict between the Yin and the Yang to exist, and has
no inherent existence.
So now we turn to causality. We speak of the past creating the
future. This must happen in the present. However, the present can be
said not to exist. It is not a point in time, but a point reduced
infinitely until it completely disappears, much in the same way the
"I" vanishes. We can point to the present as that which exists
between the past and the future. But, through infinite reduction of
time into smaller and smaller units, that existence has no time, but
simply becomes an abstract concept.
We can therefore state that the present only exists at the interface
of the past and the future, and cannot exist without these temporal
concepts. So, the present disappears when pointed to. If we then
move on to causation, we find a lot of logical problems. Causation
cannot be attributed to the present moment, and therefore it also
disappears on analysis.
We bring in the Zen of David H.'s thread. That is awareness of the
perfection of the present. We could then say that Dynamic Quality is
the present. It therefore does not exist by standard terminology of
existence. Dynamic Quality cannot be anywhere other than the present
since as we have seen, static quality exists in all other times.
All of this, in my opinion, argues in favor of Free-Will.
Regards,
Mark ("118", ununoctium the heaviest static element yet made by man).
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Steven Peterson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
>
>> [Steve]
>>> Pirsig's interpretation of causality as "B values precondition A"
>>
>> Do you have an example of this? For instance, if (B) I splat on the
>> ground, does that
>> mean that (A) I value falling out of an airplane.
>> Craig
>
>
> Steve:
> That depends entirely on what you mean by "I."
> 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
