[MD] freewill

[MarshaV]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> It seemed that Arlo was address ""Pirsig says" as an inherently existing self, which he is not.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Are you suggesting that Pirsig does not exist, and for this reason can't speak?

Marsha:
I am stating that RMP does not inherently (independently) exist.  He exists as a collection of conceptually constructed, interdependent static patterns of value.  


> [Arlo]
> Who speaks, then, if not Pirsig (and you, and me, and...)?

Marsha:
Pirsig is a name given as a useful symbol standing for the collection of static patterns of value that have Pirsig.   


> [Arlo]
> Should I not attribute your words here to "you", since you are not an inherently existing self?

Marsha:
You may by convention attribute the words here to me.  

Just to remind you on where this discussion originated:  (note:  Per Horse replace the word 'fiction' with the word 'illusion'.)

>>> 
>>> [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?   


> [Arlo]
> You seemed very irate the other day when you felt you were maliciously misquoted,

Marsha:
I was never irate.  You are projecting...  


> [Arlo]
> since you are not an inherently existing self, and cannot say anything, why does it matter which words are and are not attributed to you?

Marsha:
I can hold the 'not this, not that' dynamic understanding and still enjoy participation in the static/provisional reality.  I'm not an either/or kind of girl.  


> [Arlo]
> You use "inherently", does that mean you suggest that Pirsig is not a part of nature?

Marsha:
An inherently existing entity would be one that exists independently.  RMP is a collection of interdependent static patterns.  Are you asking about the relationship between RMP and the intellectual static pattern of value associated with the name 'nature'?   I am sure there is an interrelationship.  


> [Arlo]
> Do you think anything "inherently" exists?

Marsha:
I do not know of anything that inherently exists.   


> [Arlo]
> Did the bombs that drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima "inherently" exist?

Marsha:
No.  The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are interdependent static patterns of value; they interdependently exist.   
 
 
 
 
___