[MD] freewill

[MarshaV]

On Apr 11, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha had said]
> Me, you and Pirsig are a fiction.
> 
> "This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format."  (LILA)
> 
> [Arlo asked]
> Okay. Is The MOQ a fiction as well? Should we take something more seriously if "The MOQ" says it, than if "Pirsig" says it?
>  
> [Marsha]
> The MoQ is an intellectual static pattern of value.  A very good one, a keeper.  The inherently existing self does collapse on examination.  While a collection of static patterns of value from all four levels, Mr. Pirsig is a very good collection, also a keeper.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting that 'collections of static patterns' are 'fictions', but 'individual static patterns' are not?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what your point is. I had said "The MOQ doesn't say anything, Pirsig does", to which you replied "Pirsig is a fiction", as if to imply that this would be a difference to you between "The MOQ says" and "Pirsig says".

Marsha:
I am stating that individual or a collection, static patterns of value are provisional truths and do not inherently exist.  I interpret "fictionl" with being provisional and not Ultimately real, both will collapse the moment one examines them.  As a metaphysical discussion group, it is the nature of reality that I am trying to understand.  Your choice between "The MoQ says" and "Pirsig says" seems very pedantic.


> If I say, "The MOQ doesn't say anything, Pirsig does", and you reply with the sentiment "both the MOQ and Pirsig are fictions, as well as you and me", what's the point?

Marsha:
One is not more or less fictitious than the other.  Do you think the MoQ, an intellectual static pattern of value, is more real than Mr. Pirsig, a collection of static patterns of value?  If yes, how could that be if in either case it is static quality?   


> Okay, everything is a fiction. Does that mean we should stop speaking?

Marsha:
As if either of us could...   ;-)  


> Does that disagree with my point? Or is it just a call to stop talking and go meditate in a corner somewhere?

Marsha:
I do think a daily practice of mediation is very beneficial, essential even.   One does get to see how patterns do actually dance through ones head.   





> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Personally I'm a negative empiricist and a radical skeptic, I'd always have to investigate for myself no matter what's been said by whom, whether God, President, Mr. Pirsig or the Beatles.    So far, it has all ultimately come down to not this, not that.
> 


 
___