Hello everyone On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Dan] > I believe I said that free will and "could have acted differently" are seen as > static quality illusions in the MOQ. You seem to be twisting my words into > something that I did not say. > > [Arlo] > Totally not my intent, Dan. Your phrasing "static quality illusions" seems to > point to the fact that SQ=Illusion, and I was responding to that. I do > maintain, however, that "illusions" do not exist within a MOQ, illusions are > what emerge from the SOM that a MOQ seeks to overcome. >
Dan: Language can be tricky... yes. However, I think illusions are secondary... they emerge from experience, like both subject/object distinctions and static quality patterns. > [Dan] > If it feels better to make someone appear foolish, by all means do so. > > [Arlo] > Dan, you know me. I think you're one of the most respected voices here. Even > if > I TRIED, I could not make you look foolish. And why would I?? Dan: I apologize... I read your intentions wrongly. > > [Dan] > What do atomic bombs have to do with free will and could have beens? > > [Arlo] > My comments (about Nagasaki) were solely about equating "SQ" with "illusion", > my comments about "could've" were separate. > Dan: I understand better now... thank you. > [Dan] > Illusions are a belief in that which doesn't exist. > > [Arlo] > Right. "S's" and "O's" do not "exist". That is the trap of SOM the MOQ argues > against. But I don't think the MOQ would posit that the (again) the bombs that > exploded above Nagasaki didn't really exist. Dan: Nor do I. But static patterns don't really exist either. The levels are provisional... they'll work until something better comes along. >Arlo: > Alright, this is off the "could've" topic, but as I've said before the > "illusion" I am referring to is the "existential" reality of said "thing"... I > get that, there are no primary objects (or subjects) that precede direct > experience. And on that level to call the primacy of objects an "illusion" > makes absolute sense to me. But experientially? Wasn't this Pirsig's point in > ZMM? How can anyone say the bombs were "illusions"? How many dead, how many > wounded, how many sickened even today? How can "an illusion" do that??? Dan: I don't know for sure, but I think RMP's instructor in India who declared the bombs were illusions was operating under a different set of cultural patterns than do we in the West. Some Eastern schools of thought believe all creation is an illusion created by our projection of reality, not reality itself. So someone coming from this point of view might believe all reality is illusion, including the bombs dropped on Japan and the millions of people killed over thousand of years of warfare. > > [Dan] > Believing one could have done this or could have done that as a matter of free > will is an illusion. Once done is done. > > [Arlo] > I don't think so, Dan. The belief that one could've done something differently > has very high pragmatic value. It is a temporal symbology which allows a > significant alteration in mediated activity. How can this be "an illusion"? Dan: Could have done symbolizes the past. If one changes their activity it becomes a matter of "can do," not could have done. The illusion I refer to is believing by attaching to regrets over past mistakes we can somehow change what happened. >Arlo: > Seriously, how many people really think that "could've" in some way points to > them changing the past? How many people at our bar really are in woe because > they believe they can change what has been done? Dan: All of them... otherwise they wouldn't be wallowing in regret. Instead, they would be living a life doing the best they can in any given situation... every single action for the better. >Arlo: > "Could've" isn't just that, it is about mediated future experience by the > symbolically represented archives we hold in memory. This has real pragmatic > value, and is highly significant in our ability, as a species, to act in all > the myriad and wonderful ways we do. Dan: Absolutely. But "could have" doesn't pertain to now. Perhaps something better will arise. By clinging to the past in the form of a mediated future, we fail to act in the moment to the best of our abilities. Past regrets paralyze our actions, constricting our options to those we know... we fail to consider a new, better way. This is why amateurs are so much better at problem-solving than are professionals. > > [Dan] > But the belief in free will could have beens is still an illusion... all in > one's head. > > [Arlo] > Well, okay, I'd say that seeing "free will" as some existential "out there" > thing that floats around and controls experience is certainly an illusion. But > the concept of "free will" is an intellectual pattern of value, a way we > explain and make sense of our experience. Dan: Yes, the concept of free will is a high quality idea. >Arlo: > Of course, I have said I don't think it is the best way we can explain this, I > personally think agency/structuration is a better metaphor than free > will/determinism. Dan: Perhaps. I think a Dynamic understanding is better than a static understanding. >Arlo: > But my argument is that "free will" is only an illusion when it is offered as > some existential "object" that exists independent of experience. But as a > mediating intellectual pattern of value, it can have high or low value based > on > its success in not only describing experience but giving YOU the tools you > want > to navigate the stream of experience. Dan: In my experience, intellectualizing leads to determined action. On the other hand, there is "just doing," which is free. > > [Dan] > Proost! > > [Arlo] > Eins, zwei, g'suffa! > Dan: Ich trinke allein... Thank you, Dan 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
