On Jul 16, 2011, at 1:26 PM, 118 wrote:
> 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.
Marsha:
Please Mark, do not assume what I know. Language certainly has a
social level participation, but communication also is dependent on a
vocal apparatus which is biological. While language may be the social
level's primary expression, that does not mean that language is confined
to the social level. So what exactly is the point of this statement?
> Mark:
> It is what you experience as a result of communication and comparison
> of "other". As such, the free-will and determinism are simply words.
Marsha:
Free-will and determinism are the names given to two intellectual static
patterns of value.
> Mark:
> Determinism results from accepting causation as Buddha does (not to
> drop names, but simply to provide you with a link for your own
> education).
Marsha:
If you are talking of the twelve links in the "chain" of dependent
origination, then I understand that the "numbering" could begin
anywhere, and that, though they are described in a linear way,
in fact each link connects to all the other links.
> 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.
Everything is conventionally real.
Nothing is ultimately real.
Everything is both conventionally real and ultimately unreal.
Nothing is either conventionally unreal or ultimately real.
(Jay Garfield) - works for me...
>>> 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.
Marsha:
I'm difference between DQ and sq is fundamentally illusion. The
indeterminate is the fundamental nature of the conditioned, static or
determinate. (Textbook)
Remember the Alamo. Ooops. That's remember the Two Truths.
> Mark:
> Free-will provides the occasion for an intellectual pattern, not the
> other way around.
Marsha:
Free-will is an intellectual static pattern of value.
>> Marsha presents RMP quote:
>> "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.
Marsha:
This is one strange MoQ interpretation you are presenting. ???
>>> 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.
Marsha:
I believe the word is dukkha, meaning existential suffering, such as
frustration, alienation and despair that result from the realization
of one's mortality. I see no reason I shouldn't trust the Buddhist
scholars, but maybe you read Pali. The origin of dukkha is tanha
which means, approximately, craving, thirst, attachment and
emotional investment.
>>> 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.
What can James, Jung or Charlene tell me about the Quality or the
MoQ? My statement stands.
>>> 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.
Marsha:
Reality is Quality(unpatterned/patterned)
>> 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?
Marsha:
Change, but cannot say for certain.
>> RMP:
>> "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.
>
> Mark:
> "Dharma has many meanings beyond the Greek.
Marsha:
Don't play games with me. Dharma is not a Greek word.
> Mark:
> It can also mean "God".
Marsha:
And God is dog spelled backwards. ??? Let's stick with the program.
> Mark:
> 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?
Marsha:
If you want to understand how I personally interpret the word it would be
'to live in the heart of the matter.' You can always consult a dictionary if
you
want a more general definition.
>> "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 presented argument.
>
> [Mark]
> Likewise, I always enjoy our discussions.
Marsha:
Likewise.
>
> Take care of yourself,
> Mark
Cheers,
Marsha
___
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
