[MD] Free Will (footnotes to Plato)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --

> [Ham]:
> Quite simply, the life-experience of a human being is a proprietary
> manifestation of the essential Source as differentiated Value. The
> realization, actualization, and willful interpretation of Value is the
> cognizant awareness of a free agent. So that the individual is free to
> experience this manifestation without bias, and exercise choices in
> accordance with his/her value-sensibility, the cognizant self must be
> autonomous, that is, a subjective entity independent of the Source.
> To ensure absolute independence and autonomy, direct knowledge
> of the Source is inaccessible ("hidden") from valuistic experience.
>
> [Mark]
> This sounds good.  I suppose it could be argued that bias may intrude,
> but as you say, there could be a proprietary sensibility.  One has to
> start somewhere, and the Contingency Theory of Buddhism may not
> work for everybody, I imagine.  So autonomousness or independence
> could work if used appropriately.  And yes, I understand what you
> mean by Separation, we have discussed this in the past.  As I have
> stated, such separation is not essential and is somewhat existential.
> I would be interested to hear how the theory of the "ego" fits in with
> your ontology.  I am sure you touched on this on your site which I will
> get back to sometime.

The "separation" of selfness from the Source is not just an option, it's 
essential for the realization of Value.  We can only value what is "other" 
to us.  As a weak anology, one may value his life and appreciate its many 
blessings, but he cannot appreciate himself in the way that others value 
him.  Unless we objectify Value as tangible otherness (concrete being), 
there is no experience for us to value, and our life is just an insensible 
course of purposeless self-survival.

That is the ontology Pirsig would have us subscribe to.  The MoQ presents 
Quality (Value) as the otherness that moves eternally to "betterness", while 
we humans are simply its patterns -- shadows of its goodness that we are 
obliged to follow.  If this is true, then what is called Quality encompasses 
both the good and the bad as a kind of variegated course for man to run on. 
Evolution moves him to betterness unless he decides to pursue a "lower" 
course, in which case life is filled with anguish and frustration.

Contrast this with an uncreated Source that is "perfect" in every way, but 
that excludes (negates) a free agent to realize its Value from an individual 
(differentiated) perspective.  Crudely speaking, it "puts out feelers" in 
order that the sensible agent may realize the difference between better and 
worse objectively, that is, as an otherness whose appearance affords a range 
of experiences to appreciate, measure, moralize, choose and act upon.  Does 
such an ontology not offer existential, if not also metaphysical, meaning?

Ego for the Buddhist is quite different from the Freudian ego understood by 
westerners. The Buddhist tends to think of ego as one's identification with 
mental events (skandhas), which can cause a loss of confidence and lead to 
suffering.

In his essay An Overview of Buddhism, Mike Butler says:

"After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels 
about the formation of this experience.  If we like the experience, we try 
to draw it in.  If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it.  If 
we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it.  The way we feel about the 
experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is 
known as the skandha of impulse/perception.

"The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience.  If we can 
put it into a category, we can manipulate it better.  Then we would have a 
whole bag of tricks to use on it. T his is the skandha of concept.  The 
final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness.  Ego 
begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around.  This makes ego 
feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara --  
literally, to whirl about.  The way ego feels about its situation (skandha 
of feeling) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for 
itself. "

Inasmuch as ego today bears the deprecatory label of greed and selfishness, 
I prefer the term 'self' which is the locus (value-sensible agent) of 
experienced reality.  In answer to your question,
no special "theory" is called for beyond the acknowledgement of  "selfness", 
which is self-evident to everyone.

> My question has always been, where does this autonomous agent begin.
> Being a biologist, I tend to subdivide this body of ours, and I do not
> see any physical delineation of this sovereignty.  I do see Will as
> important, but it is more a window into this world; the frame of such
> window is our body.  I do not have a firm grasp of existential reality,
> and it means many things to me.

First, get a firm grip on reality, Mark. You're going to need it to live 
effectively in this world.

The self is not to be found in dissecting the body; it is of a different 
nature than gray matter and nerve tissue.  But since the brain stores 
experience as a series of time/space events, we are always looking for a 
"beginning" or "cause" of awareness which, to me, is simply a manifestation 
of the self/other dichotomy negated by the Source.  Any defined entity is an 
other actualized by the self experientially, and experience "begins" at 
birth with value-sensibility.

> Perhaps I am thinking more like you, or you more like me.
> Chances are that it is the former since I am very suggestible.
> Of course, the devil is in the details, but perhaps general
> congruence is possible. There are many who make up the
> Qualityland population, so I cannot speak for them.  I do not
> think the box you put us all in is quite accurate.  But, I enjoy
> being provocative as well, it draws response.

How would you describe the box that Pisig has laid out verbally and 
schematically?

Thanks for your determination.  Is it more satisfying to be "determined to 
agree" than to agree to disagree?

Respectfully,
Ham