[MD] freewill

[MarshaV]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [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]
> Given this, what is the problem with saying "Pirsig says..."?

Here was my statement:

>> Marsha:
>> I am stating that individual or a collection, static patterns of value are provisional truths and do not inherently exist.  I interpret "illusion" 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.


Saying "Pirsig says..." is not a problem.  Differentiating between "MoQ says" and "Pirsig says..." seems pedantic given that both statements represent static quality.  And I cannot understand the difference between between the two forms of static quality being so important.  It's all analogy.  It's all static value.   




> 
> [Marsha]
> I do not know of anything that inherently exists.
> 
> [Arlo]
> If neither "The MOQ" nor "Pirsig" inherently exist, why do you have a problem with "Pirsig says..." but not "The MOQ says..."?

Marsha:
They are both static value, on what basis are you differentiating?   You point doesn't make sense to me from a MoQ perspective.  


> [Marsha]
> Pirsig is a name given as a useful symbol standing for the collection of static patterns of value that have Pirsig.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So how does this deny using "Pirsig says..."? Do you think "Pirsig wrote ZMM"? Or should we not say that as well?

Marsha:
It doesn't deny the validity of using "Pirsig says..."  It diminishes the differentiation. imho. 


> [Marsha]
> Your choice between "The MoQ says" and "Pirsig says" seems very pedantic.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So you think "The MOQ" speaks?

Marsha:
I think "The MoQ" is an intellectual static pattern of value.  Static patterns of value are interrelated.  In some cases that relationship may be with a vocal mechanism.  


> [Arlo]
> Does it do anything else? While this may explain the voices in your head, "The MOQ" does not speak, "The MOQ" is a collection of words spoken BY Robert Pirsig.

Marsha:
Conventionally, the MoQ speaks to me.  It did from the first time I read LILA.   


> [Arlo]
> I understand, to be sure, why you would want to promote "The MOQ says...". This is necessary for the interpretive legitimacy argument, as it turns everyone, even Pirsig, into "interpreters" of what "The MOQ says".

Marsha:
Your interpretive legitimacy argument seemed like a red herring to me.  I have no dog in that circus act.   


> [Arlo]
> You can't make a bid for interpretative legitimacy, in other words, if its "Pirsig" speaking, but you can if Pirsig is just another interpretor of "The MOQ" speaking.

Marsha:
While I offered some quotes I thought pertinent, I didn't participate in the thread discussion.  


> [Marsha]
> 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]
> No, neither are "more real". Such concepts as "more real" are the illusions of S/O thinking.

Marsha:
I agree.   So why differentiate between them.  Seems overly fussy to me.  


> [Marsha]
> An inherently existing entity would be one that exists independently.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Why does "Pirsig says" imply to you "inherent existence", but "The MOQ says" does not?

Marsha:
It doesn't imply it to me. To me it's all DQ/sq.  It was how I was interpreting your point-of-view.


> [Arlo]
> Why do you move away from "Pirsig says", if its because such a word choice implies "inherent existence", but you don't find the same fault with "The MOQ says..."?

Marsha:
I think it's all analogy for both, and both subject to interpretation.  


> [Arlo asked]
> 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.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Inherent" means "involved in the constitution or essential character of something; belonging by nature or habit: intrinsic, hardwired, native, natural, innate, ingrained, indigenous, immanent; existing in someone or something as a permanent, inseparable element, quality, or attribute".
> 
> It does not mean "independent".

Marsha:
Okay, the dictionary doesn't not reference 'independent'.  They are synonyms within the Buddhist literature.  Perhaps the reference to 'permanent' ' and 'inseparably' will work.  If you lookup 'inhere,' you will see the word 'intrinsically' can be added.  In case your are interested, here is a Buddhist explanation:.   
   
      http://kwelos.tripod.com/metaphysics/inherentexistence.htm   


 

 
___