On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Dear Marsha -- > > >> Greetings Ham, >> >> What do you mean by "subjective Self?" Are you suggesting >> a subjective stream of consciousness as presented in the Steve >> Hagen quote, or an independent, autonomous Self that is a locus >> of control? AND Dynamic Quality isn't anything. Fatalism, >> on the other hand, is an intellectual static pattern of value. >> Or were you asking something different? > > The question isn't complicated, Marsha. Dennett defined Fatalism as > "determinism with you left out." I'm asking if Fatalism is DQ's > deterministic movement to betterness as posited by Pirsig who rejects the > subjective "you". The purpose behind the question relates to the quandary > that Steve and dmb are mired in, largely because they're bound to the > Pirsigian position that DQ is the only "free agent" in existence.
'Fatalism' is an intellectual static pattern of value; it is an ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent process. From the MoQ position 'fatalism' is NOT a THING to have; it is a pattern; it is a conceptually constructed, illusory, event. > Back in August, Horse gave us this summary of the 'self--agent of action' > disussion before it turned into the Free Will debate. > > [Horse]: >> What is the difference between an 'autonomous individual self ' and >> an 'autonomous moral agent'? I'm having a hard time seeing any >> difference at all given what's been said so far. >> >> So given my current inability to see where there is an effective >> difference in this discussion: >> >> What is it then that has or expresses free will if not an 'autonomous >> individual self '. >> And if this 'autonomous individual self ' is illusory then the >> conventional way of looking at free will is also illusory. Horse's observation makes sense to me. > Marsha, you are one of those people who can't seem to accept selfness as > either real or proprietary to the individual. You say "the self is a flow of > ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent inorganic, biological, social and > intellectual static patterns of value." You have also been ambivalent as to > your belief in a subjective (individual) self, quoting the Buddhist position > that "One cannot say that the self exists; one cannot say that the self does > not exist," but you insist that there is no autonomous self. Maybe you're > willing to settle for the self as a "convention" or "illusion", but I'm not. My statements are based on investigation. I have sought the thinker of thoughts, but have found only awareness of a flow of perceptions and conceptions(patterns). I have found no locus-of-control independent of the flow of patterns. So what can be said of an autonomous self that has not been found to exist? I neither accept it nor reject it. > My position is that a patchwork of value patterns cannot be a real identity > capable of forming independent judgments and exercising its own will. The process is valuation. Static patterns are valuations based on previous causes and conditions. One of the patterns is the misconception of an independent, autonomous self with a controlling 'will.' > Yet, that is what we all do as free individuals. Autonomy is the bedrock > of human existence. We rationalize Determinism from the cause-and-effect > precept that comes from our temporal experience of an evolving universe. > Determinism affords us a reliable foothold on which to base decisions and > actions. But it doesn't move us, create our thoughts, or tell us what to > value. We freely choose our actions--and our morality--based upon our > proprietary value-sensibility tempered by reason. The process, valuation, is that "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." > What the MoQers don't seem to understand is that without the autonomy of free > agency human life has no meaning. This statement makes no sense to me. Meaning based on what? Meaning is static quality that changes moment to moment. What meaning? For me, a fuller participation in the process is to be sought. Though there may be other ways to achieve this, I find mindfulness/awareness puts one on the "the leading edge of the engine". > If morality and choice are imposed on us by an "external agent" such as > Quality, our existence is robotic and superfluous. The universe will > continue to evolve toward its determined course, while our life is but a > dream of scripted experiences. How can such a world be considered "moral" > when "immorality" is only a static intellectual pattern? First, Quality is not an "external agent". Quality is Reality is process, experience(unpatterned/patterned). I think morality may be considered two ways. The first is the point-of-view which is non-dualistic(indivisible, undefinable and unknowable) and ALL is GOOD. The second is from a static/conventional point-of-view where patterns are reified, compared and judged. To know ALL may be to have both points-of-view understood as one. > But I've jumped the gun by offering a response before you've answered my > question. Why don't you absorb what I've stated above, ask additional > questions if necessary, and then give me your honest opinion. I'll simplify > the question for you: Is the MoQ a deterministic philosophy? It depends... > Thanks Marsha, > Ham Though we may disagree on many points, have I made myself understandable? Marsha p.s. My houseguest will be leaving today. I will try to review your posts from Sept 19th and locate your book to further check your Donald Hoffman reference concerning consciousness. ___ 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
