Hi Khoo, Great to hear from you again. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Khoo Hock Aun <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dave,
> In considering Pirsig's quote, he is probably paraphrasing the Buddist > viewpoint which says that " in as far as this "complex ecology" is > "conditioned" by static patterns of quality (the illusion that they are real > and last forever), then it is without choice. In poker parlance, you are > dealt the hand you have BUT its up to you how you make of it. Thats it. [Mark] It would seem to me that Pirsig is saying the opposite. What I interpret, is that Quality is provided freely, but once you have got it, the wheels are in motion as to how you have play it. Perhaps I misinterpret what you are posting. > > But determinism denies the probablistic universe where timing is everything. [Mark] This brings in Chance, which is either the source of all things, of the direction of all things. Timing implies multiple causality and multiple choices. What some such as Steve are saying is that such choices are illusions. That the path has been laid out from the beginning. > > Just as the Buddha did, and as Pirsig realised it to, it is equally > dangerous to take either extreme of having "No Self" and "Self" while we > still inhabit our illusory impermanent selves. The former leads to > unproductive nihilism and the kind of ascetism that the the pre-enlightened > Buddha pursued. Forcing the end of self too soon, before one is ready for an > "unconditioned" existence, leads to absurd results. On the other hand, > pursuing the latter leads to self-aggrandisement and its preservation at all > costs, the kind that we see placed in the world today by the Western Church > of Reason. [Mark] Yes, the Middle Road. He had to slow down and sit under a tree to chill out. The only problem that I had with his path along that road was that he became very attached to his way. One day I was at a Buddhist meeting, and I went up the the speaker and asked him why was Buddha so passionate about his teachings. The priest told me to read the Diamond Sutra. Which I did to no avail. At the next meeting the speaker had received summons to change his path and was not their. For some reason I thought it was because of me, and I felt bad since I did not mean anything by my question. > What seems to be missing from this discussion, is the role of moderation in > considering either extreme. The text refers to this as taking the middle > path. Buddhas aside, to those of us who still inhabit selves, need to refer > to the self, not the permanent cartesian, essential notion of it, but if you > will, the aggregated "complex ecology of static patterns" that free of > conditioning, can and still choose among the choices that is before it. > > But to the extent that this "complex ecology" is "unconditioned", > liberated in a way from the static patterns binding it into a certain > trajectory, it is free to make its choices, including the choice of not > making a choice. In the conventional sense, "freedom" or "free will" is the > ability and the capacity to make choices. In the unconventional sense, > dynamically speaking, it also involves ending this charade all tgether. [Mark] As Buddha states: he cannot speak because he has no mouth. He is the result of intermingled arisings and is at their whims. Buddha is firmly on the side of determinism and he believes in it. Perhaps the only free-will that he espouses on is that of liberation. I do not think that Buddha promoted suicide. I do not know what the rules for reincarnation are for a suicide, but it must be bad Karma. According to Albert Camus in "The Myth of Sisyphus", the only real choice is whether to commit suicide or not. I believe that this is a false choice. > > The task of removing all pre-conditions for existence is an ardous one, not > properly understood nor explicated by many. Even the Buddha had to live out > his natural life, exhausting each day these pre-conditions before he was > truly and completely liberated, which is why I think your putting it out as > a "complex ecology" helps to further the understanding of the MOQ in this > discussion. [Mark] Yes, Buddha believed fully in preconditions. All conditions arose from co-dependency. Living out ones life without choice is not how I prefer to view this existence. Buddha was perhaps the first existentialist that became prominent. Thanks for you information. Mark > > Thank you. > Best regards > > Khoo Hock Aun > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:15 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> The MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous fiction and replaces >> that concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the self as a complex >> ecology of static patterns. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's >> self is the solution to that problem. >> Marsha said: >> In the MoQ, there is no subject and there are no objects. If there is no >> subject - if there is no self - then there is no subject/self to have >> freedom of the will, and likewise, there is no subject/self who has a life >> that is determined. The issue is meaningless. So, I neither accept >> free-wlll and determinism, nor deny free-wlll and determinism. >> >> dmb says: >> I see your reasoning. The MOQ rejects SOM, so there is no subject, so there >> is no self to be either free or determined. I understand how you get to your >> conclusion. But it's wrong. You've made a very crucial mistake. You've >> equated the rejection of the subjective self with the rejection of self. If >> that were true, Pirsig wouldn't be able to reformulate the issue the way he >> did. >> >> >> 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." >> >> If the MOQ says there is no self, then what is Pirsig referring to in these >> sentences? Who is the "one" controlled by static patterns? Who is the "one" >> following Dynamic Quality? In what sense is the freedom of this "one" >> meaningless? In what sense is the extent of freedom and restraint of this >> "one" meaningless? Like I said, the MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a >> ridiculous fiction and replaces that SOM concept of the self with the MOQ's >> concept of the self as a complex ecology of static patterns with the >> capacity to respond to DQ. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's >> self is the solution to that problem. >> Your position, that there is no self at all, is absolutely ridiculous. How >> would that work? I've heard of low self esteem before, but that really takes >> the cake. If your position is that there is no self, then who is making this >> denial? Did your sentences type themselves? Who wrote Zen and the Art, if >> not some kind of "self"? Who are you arguing with, if not an actual person? >> Your position is not just unsound, it's absurd. >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > > [email protected] > 6016-301 4079 > 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
