[MD] Free Will

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings Good Dan Glover,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "To the extent that one's behavior is
>>>>>>> controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent
>>>>>>> that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
>>>>>>>     (LILA, Chapter 12)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a way to look at it:  'To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by the freewill (a static pattern of value) it is without choice.  But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure what you're getting at. Is this a typo, perhaps? Yes,
>>>>>> free will is a static pattern of value. But so is everything. Every
>>>>>> "thing" that is, except Dynamic Quality. Static patterns of quality
>>>>>> determine our lives. Dynamic Quality makes our lives better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>> But there is also this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in the same situation as that platypus. Because they can't classify it the experts have claimed there is something wrong with it.  And Quality isn't the only such platypus. Subject-object metaphysics is characterized by herds of huge, dominating, monster platypi. The problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to matter, of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of the apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life within it are all monster platypi created by the subject-object metaphysics..."
>>>>>>>      (LILA, Chapter 8)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is that. But what exactly are you getting at? I don't see
>>>>>> any commentary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> A little after the Chapter 8 quote, "These creatures that seem like such a permanent part of the philosophical landscape magically disappear when a good Metaphysics of Quality is applied."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this issues is deemed a huge, dominating, monstrous, som, platypus that the MoQ removes, on what basis would you like to continue the discussion?   Is there a clear new question being formulated for discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>>
>>>> I don't know as there is a clear new question, but rather our dialogue
>>>> here seems to revolve around the taking apart of one metaphysics of
>>>> quality and putting together a better one. What RMP seems to be saying
>>>> (metaphorically) is that ideas like free will vs determinism, mind vs
>>>> matter, the meaning of life vs the meaningless of life all are
>>>> questions arising from an erroneous assumption that subjects and
>>>> objects are the primary division of the world.
>>> Marsha:
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>>> It isn't necessary to rid ourselves of those notions, however.
>>> Marsha:
>>> No?  Might there be confusion discussing the MoQ from a subject-object orientation?
>>
>> Dan:
>> Rather the opposite, I should think.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> What strategy have you used to kick the subject-object habit?
>>
>> Dan:
>> I've been re-watching the Joseph Campbell documentaries on mythology.
>> It is quite wonderful the way he explains our myths as the basis of
>> our civilization rather than old musty stories that have no
>> present-day meaning. Subjects and objects are part of the mythology of
>> our culture. Those terms are the bedrock on which our agreements with
>> the world are based. Instead of trying to "kick the subject-object
>> habit" we need to understand the mythology behind it.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Do you think one can just intellectualize the change from S-O to Quality?
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> No need. We all know what Quality is even if we cannot explain what it
>> is we know.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> Marsha:
>
> Well if this is what you think, it's your reality.

Dan:

That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you
might push back a bit if you didn't agree... that you might actually
indulge me in a dialogue. Well, no matter.

>
> Have a good evening,

Yeah, you too.

Dan