On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:45 AM, 118 wrote:
> Yes, Marsha,
> This is the conundrum that you put yourself into imho.
Marsha:
The only conundrum that I experience is that language is based
on differentiated experience: subject, predicate & object. Of freewill,
determinism and causation, I neither accept them nor reject them.
They are static patterns of value, sometimes useful illusions and
sometimes not. As static patterns of value, they are not Ultimately Real.
> The relegation of free-will to one of a pattern is a common mistake.
Marsha:
Within the MoQ, there is only Dynamic Quality and static quality
as static patterns of value. Free-will is an intellectual pattern.
That which best represent what is free, on the other hand, is
explained in Chapter 12 of LILA:
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
> This is a primary mistake that the last Buddha made. Determinism
> results in monism. That is, there is nothing new after the beginning,
> and everything unfolds according to the great architect which some
> call God. This is rooted in a fundamental lack of self-reliance where
> responsibility is an anathema. Even Buddha saw this and attempted to
> get around it. For if one is not responsible, how then does one care
> for all sentient beings? If one is not responsible, then why come
> back as a Bodhisattva?
Marsha:
The purpose of Buddhism is not to explain reality, or determine
responsibility, but to relieve suffering.
> Mark:
> The opposite, that of free will is representative of the Conservative
> premise as opposed to the Liberal. A fundamental notion of
> responsibility is key to this country. However such a thing is
> threatening; what if one makes a mistake? And so, the pluralistic
> outlook is hidden with rhetoric. Even W. James saw the vast
> difference between the monistic view and the dualistic (or more) one.
> He was firmly on the side of Paganism, and paved the way for modern
> philosophy as well as psychology. Carl Jung also furthered this
> effort. The sense of the Archetype assumed more than one such
> Archetype as opposed to a single unfolding source.
Marsha:
Really Mark, you are going to appeal to authority??? You can't
possibly think that will move me. Other than what RMP has to
say, since the MoQ has been created and presented by him,
do you really think I can be swayed by how you interpret the
Buddha, or what James or Jung say, or dmb, Charlene and the
dictionary, for that matter? Quality is experience, and it is by
experience that I determine what is right.
> Mark:
> You are sounding like Steven, who contradicts himself often. He
> states that we "bring meaning with us" and then he goes no to state
> that meaning is provided us through deterministic processes. This is
> really the key to the argument. Quality is either provided us, or
> created by us. I know which side Ham sits on, and he is the most
> consistent one I know. Many throw curve balls, but his hitting is
> true. While there is no such thing as a home-run in this debate, many
> choose to walk to base, or get hit by a pitch rather than see the
> light at the end of the field. It is in the bleachers where passion
> lives, not in the expensive sealed off boxes.
Marsha:
Are you confusing pronouns with autonomous entities? Reality is
Quality (Dynamic/static).
The baseball analogy doesn't work for me. Not at all...
> Mark:
> If you choose determinism, then there is no way of getting back to
> free will, it is impossible. However, if you choose free-will, then
> you can always change your mind. It is much easier to go from two to
> one, than from one to two. As you know, according to Tao, the Tao
> creates the one which creates the two. This natural order is reversed
> by the thinking brain.
Marsha:
I can only repeat: I neither accept free-will, determinism & causation, nor
reject free-will, determinism & causation; they are static patterns of value
that have at times been considered useful illusions, but are not Ultimately
Real. Within the MoQ, the natural order and ethical code is best
represented by the following quote:
"Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition
which
gives man perfect satisfaction.
"Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by
others.
It is not any artificial set of conventions which can be amended or repealed by
legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is arbitrarily decided by one's
own
conscience. Dharma is beyond all questions of what is internal and what is
external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives
structure
and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of
the
universe which life has created."
(LILA, Chapter 30)
> Mark:
> Perhaps you are considering reconsidering your position?
Marsha:
I find no grounds here on which to reconsider my position, but I will
always listen to a clearly present argument.
> Cheers,
> Mark
Marsha
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Many people do harbor a deep-seated sense/belief/assumption/feeling that
>> given an identical situation, they could have chosen to act differently.
>> But the
>> assumption of having a free-will, of being a free agent, is but a pattern,
>> and is
>> not Ultimately Real. imho
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:39 AM, 118 wrote:
>>
>>> Let's get serious here. This is an MoQ forum, we should be talking
>>> about the Quality of Free will. I am tired of reading posts that are
>>> either copies, quotes, or plagiarisms of something that was said one
>>> year ago, or two hundred years ago. I can forgive the newcomers, or
>>> the wannabys since they do not know better. But some of these
>>> established Qists who do this deliberately to obfuscate the purpose of
>>> this forum and mislead the reader into thinking that something new is
>>> being developed in this world, is really unforgivable and immoral. If
>>> we are doing an Inquiry into morals, let's at least begin with
>>> ourselves. Is it moral to present something as if it is your own
>>> idea, simply for the purposes of aggrandizement? Is is moral to
>>> mislead and obfuscate for the deliberate purpose of denigrating the
>>> Metaphysics of Quality? If Pirsig were still alive, he would go
>>> quickly back to his grave in disgust. Is there not one of use that
>>> has the Values appropriate for promoting his metaphysics. You guys
>>> (and gals) just make me sick. Who amongst you is willing to rise
>>> above this petty and insignificant posturing? Who amongst you is
>>> ready to stand for something real and enduring. Please do not all
>>> raise your hands at once. And stop cowering under that classroom desk
>>> afraid that I may pick on you. Really!!
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> 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
