Hi Marsha, I admire your faithfulness to your ideas. I have no goal to change that, only to learn from you.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 8:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > [Mark] Yes, as you know, language is the Social Levels primary expression. It is what you experience as a result of communication and comparison of "other". As such, the free-will and determinism are simply words. Determinism results from accepting causation as Buddha does (not to drop names, but simply to provide you with a link for your own education). These things are static patterns of words, not value. Value can result from imposing these patterns, not the other way around. Either everything is Ultimately real, or nothing is. In the monistic world you live in, there are no choices, there is only one. > >> 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: [Mark] I am glad that you are recognizing the fundamental difference between DQ and sq. This is a big improvement, I am impressed. Free-will provides the occasion for an intellectual pattern, not the other way around. > > "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." [Mark] And yes, the Quality Textbook is wrong here imo. Dynamic quality provides that which we can follow if we are free. I prefer the term unexpressable rather than undefinable. For in the end things are only defined by other words, and the whole process is circular. But, whatever, no big deal to me. > > >> 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] No this is incorrect. "Suffering" is the word given by the Western Mind at the beginning of the 1900's. This was the same time that Buddhism was coined. Look it up if you want. The correct term is to "provide meaning", or to "provide satisfaction". It is a positive attribute not a negative one. There is no relief needed from pain or any other thing, only growth. > > >> 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] No, I am not trying to appeal to authority, I am simply providing links to improve your web, SpiderLady. Watch out for those Hobbits. > > >> 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). [Mark] No, I do not think my grammar is incorrect. "He" is an Archetype as I presented above. Quality provides our Reality. > > The baseball analogy doesn't work for me. Not at all... As the Cuban said: "Baseball has been belly belly good to me" > > >> 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: [Mark] You can reject those static patterns of value can't you? What is Ultimately Real in your opinion? > > "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 has many meanings beyond the Greek. It can also mean "God". In terms of MoQ, it is Quality as Pirsig says. Quality is also Ethics as he points out. What does Ethics mean to you, Marsha? > > "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. [Mark] Likewise, I always enjoy our discussions. Take care of yourself, 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
