Theism is an intellectual static pattern of value, how long do you want to devote to discussing theism?
On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:33 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:06 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> >> >>> From: [email protected] >>> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:18:56 -0400 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality of Free Will >>> >>> >>> 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: >>> >> Pirsig said: >> "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." >> >> >> dmb says: >> It seems that a lot of the debate centers around the interpretation of these >> two sentences. Steve, for example, keeps saying that it makes no sense to >> say we are free to choose our values because we ARE those values. He also >> seems to think that rejecting SOM means all issues of freedom and control >> are rendered meaningless. Likewise, Marsha says Free-will is an intellectual >> pattern, a useful illusion. > > > Marsha: > I probably should have written 'free-will is an intellectual pattern, a > sometimes useful pattern, but an illusion, and NOT Ultimate Reality.' If > you want to argue from a som point-of-view (concerning a subject's > free-will), please discuss freewill vs. determinism as long as it pleases > you. From a MoQ, point-of-view, it isn't relevant, and I don't find it very > interesting. Further I don't find your interpretation of RMP clear or > accurate as stated. > > I neither accept free-will, nor deny free-will. > > > > ___ > > > 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
