[MD] Does Lila have free will?

[MarshaV]

Hello again Steve, 

This MU thing is interesting.  If one proclaims MU, as I often do by 
stating 'not this, not that', one is proclaimed the village idiot.  But 
MU is beyond language, so trying to explain the MU position may 
also get you proclaimed to be the village idiot.  I think you did a fine 
job of pointing out the text and explaining where RMP establishes 
the MoQ's MU position with regard to 'free will'.  And as you rightfully 
point out, that view is pointing beyond a subject-object reality.  


Marsha


On Jul 9, 2011, at 9:24 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> 
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:45 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> 
>>> To answer you question specifically, in Chapter 14 Lila states that she
>>> is not anybody.  If this is a rejection of the self, a self that is created though
>>> repeatedly identifying with static patterns of value, my guess would be
>>> that Lila, the character, does not have "free will."
>>> 
>>> More generally, from my MoQ point-of-view, whatever that means, my
>>> answer stands as I neither accept "free will" nor reject "free will" so MU.
>> 
>> 
>> Steve:
>> I think that is an excellent answer. Rather than saying that the MOQ
>> rejects both horns of the dilemma, I should have said, "mu" (as I have
>> when I was being more careful). The MOQ does not accept either horn
>> (determinism or free will), but instead it says that neither is right,
>> and they're not even wrong. The whole question as traditionally posed
>> is thrown out as based on a premise that the MOQ does not accept. The
>> MOQ replaces this question with, "to what extent are our actions
>> static and to what extent are they dynamic?" In this replacement
>> question about freedom, the term "will" is no where in the picture.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Steve
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> It seems to me that you have been saying MU, so I agree with you.  It does, 
> though, exist as a static pattern of value, a pragmatic illusion. Maybe its 
> outgrown it usefulness?   Maybe if Reality were experienced as Quality, 
> such a pattern would no longer be useful.  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> ___

> l


 
___