Hi Ron, I am not sure if your question is directed towards me, but I will provide my opinionated answer. First I will address Steve's concerns about the entomology of Will.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:53 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree, Mark. Quality as Will makes sense to me. As does, Will as "the >> ability to choose" or "freedom". Which I also equate with Quality. Thus >> "Free Will" is a sort of redundancy, as I think Steve's arguments point out. >> However, a rhetorical redundancy does not obviate the metaphysical >> fundamentalness of freedom to will and being. > > Steve: > In this formulation I DON'T thinkit is redundant. If "will" is Quality > then "free will" is Dynamic Quality. But this is of course a very > different conception of the concept of free will. It is not some power > to be excessed or not. It is not the thing deep within each soul to > point to and declare "could have done otherwise" when someone errs. It > is the groundstuff of reality. This concept is so different from the > SOM concept of free will that it wold be better not to use that term > to avoid confusion. Let's just call it DQ. [Mark] In my opinion, will is something that is expressed. It is in fact the Soul. It is indeed a power expressed by each and every one of us in a free manner. Wishing for otherwise is a manifestation of static quality. As you correctly say, Steve, the SOM static representation of Will is not DQ, but its dynamic representation is. So yes, Will is the same as DQ. > > Ron: > Well, thats fine, but it is not so different as you might think. We are still > discussing morality just the explanations for the same behaviour are > expanded. > We all want to do good. The will to good is the groundstuff of reality. > The struggle then is in the context. Which wills to good are better than > others? If intellectual goods are better than social goods then the concept > of Dynamic Quality/free will is the most moral pattern of Quality. Yes, between life and death is contained the component of Choice. It is up to us to decide which is good and which is not. This choice is not always easy since somethings which appear to have equal good, may not seem so from a different perspective. Nobody can tell us (or Phaedrus) what is good. I would have to disagree in terms of the Intellectual layer which lies outside individual human intellect, since it is expressed as an archetype. This archetype is the conceptual framework which becomes apparent in the Social Layer. (Please forgive me for using the term Layer, it is easier for me to explain things in that way). DQ and F-W are not dichotomies, but are expressions of the same thing, as Steve states. A moral pattern is DQ reduced to its sq appearance, and can be considered to be a subset of Quality if the DQ and sq divide do not co-arise but each result independently. Please refer to my postings to Marsha for more on this. > > Some call it enlightenment, that perception is alterable, > some caution that with this knowledge also comes > the greatest of responsibilities. The responsibility of intent. [Mark] Yes, enlightenment is another term for "revealing what lies beneath", "removing layers", or "becoming unencumbered by static appearances". Will and Intent are the same thing except one denotes expression, and the other denotes purpose. It would be more correct to say "the intent of responsibility", where purpose is qualifying expression. > > What do you say to leaving the SOM brand of the discussion and pursuing > the Moq brand. [Mark] I thought we were told to leave the SOM brand behind or suffer the consequences. What I have always been discussing, is the MoQ brand, since I joined several years ago. So, I concur with your proposal. Perhaps we should divide the posts up in SOM and MoQ. That is, each post can be started as follows-- SOM: The Appearances of Quality; or MoQ: The Expressions of Quality. Thanks for your input. I will always defer to you when it involves logic whether it be DQ or sq. The former is of course implying direction, and the latter position. 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
