[MD] The kind of will that is "free"

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The kind of will that is "free"


> Hi Carl,
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[Mark prev]
>>> Hi John,
>>> Yes, I agree. The rhetorical value is in sharing it in order to bring
>>> about mutual agreement so that something can be shared as one. There is
>>> great meaning in that, such as sharing a funny part of a movie. 
>>> Otherwise
>>> the appreciation is quite isolating.
>>
>> If I can jump in here: Isn't the very sharing of your personal experience 
>> a
>> 'sort of' attempt to subvert someone else's will? To explain, have you
>> noticed that when someone shares a funny part of a movie, they affect the
>> attitude or speech pattern of the comic? To explain, by trying to 
>> recreate
>> their own experience, they are attempting to cause a similar reaction in 
>> the
>> person they're relating it to. From what I understand of ZAMM, Persig 
>> came
>> to the realization that truth and beauty, (and I extrapolate humor) were 
>> not
>> absolute, but rather an event. That event would be dynamic, as it could
>> only happen in that time, in that place. If you saw the movie again, that
>> scene may still be funny, but it won't be funny in the same way you saw 
>> it
>> the first time. Maybe my point is that the event itself IS isolating, in
>> that it occurs within the viewer or particiapant, since there is no way 
>> that
>> two people will react in exactly the same manner. There can be mutual
>> agreement that the scene was funny, but you can never be sure that it was
>> funny to the same degree or in the exact same way.
>
> Mark:
> Yes, I agree, sharing gives the illusion of sharing.  The purpose of
> rhetoric is to convince or subvert someone else's will.  Humor is one
> of the best ways to appear to connect, there is nothing like laughing
> together.  As I understand Pirsig, he brings in the concept of
> "Relationalism" (not to be confused with relativism).  Each event
> relates to another.  Each moment is unique, and each memory is unique
> everytime it arises within one.
>
> We are islands due to the inability to express our minds.  Telepathy
> would somewhat solve this.  Telepathy would be in the form of empathy
> or another emotion.  No words would be required since words only arise
> after the feeling, if you will.

This is the problem.  We apparently don't have the ability to share feelings 
without putting them into words.  At that point, we inject our personal 
predjuces, beliefs, etc. into the telling.  Culture rears up and takes over. 
Then again, if you have established an empathic link, it IS possible to 
share feelings without words, but that requires a lot more intimacy than 
most people are capable of, or so it appears.

> As such, words are simply an
> elaborate binary form of communication that try to form a net with
> which to relate an awareness.  Any net has more space than rope.

Agreed.  It can be the holes that make the net useful, though.  Maybe the 
holes in our communication are simply spaces in which we can grow?

> Now I am not sure if reaction cannot be identical.  I feel that
> thoughts co-arise together between individuals.  Kind of like a yawn
> happening at the same time between individuals in a crowd.  It is the
> way these thoughts are expressed that differs.  While there are many
> different kinds of fear, for example, the feelings involved are pretty
> much all the same.  The same can be said for joy, in my opinion.

I was splitting hairs a bit, I think.  Two people can express fear at the 
same time, but I doubt that the fear will be expressed in the same way.  For 
example, if there is an intruder in your house at night, you might fear for 
your life, while you wife may fear for something else entirely.  Her first 
thoughts may go to the children, or her personal safety.  I think you get 
what I'm talking about.

>>> Freedom is something I feel and seek like minded individuals. Those who
>>> believe in determinism do not interest me.
>>
>> This begs the question of what exactly is freedom. I say, "Mark" as a
>> dynamic expression of my current experience, with no previous experience 
>> or
>> expectation, and you reply, "What?" as the static expression of your
>> cultural mores. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I don't think it's
>> possible to be totally free of that cultural training, or we wouldn't be
>> able to communicate at all.
>
> Mark:
> The semantics of Freedom has gone around and around here.  Freedom,
> for me, is a feeling that we probably all recognize so long as we do
> not analyze it.  At its height it resemble weightlessness or floating
> in one of those isolation chambers.  It signifies something beyond the
> physical attachment to all, and at its inception is Liberation.  Such
> Freedom is short lived since we once again compartmentalize with wordy
> thoughts.  However, experiences such as movie watching allows the
> individual to completely lose the self and participate freely.  The
> same can be said for skiing down a black diamond slope, for me.  It is
> this direct contact with something other than the daily routine that
> provides freedom to me.

To me, freedom is the ability to act, rather than re-act to a situation. 
It's like getting beyond the cultural expectations and being who your truely 
are, rather than playing out scripts that you've learned.  Some achieve 
that, most don't.  There are a LOT of organizations that prey on the folks 
who are unable to function without a set of guidelines.  I think most 
religious and political organizations are like that, as well as many civic 
organizations.  That's not to say that everyone involved is mindless, but I 
would bet that the majority are, as Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers 
once said, "Unencumbered by the thought process."  <G>  It's interesting 
that you achieve your sense of freedom by escaping the daily routine, (which 
I call the mundane).  One of my goals is to achieve a state whenin I am 
present in the here and now, and totally conscious of my feelings.  I've 
managed it a few times, and it's interesting.  Once you stop the scripts 
even the routine becomes liberating.

Carl