[MD] Does Lila have free will?

[MarshaV]

Hi John,

I've missed you.   

I'm caring about anatta at the moment.   I just don't get the insistence on MY free-will.  As far as the ethical considerations, these statements make the most sense to me.  

"Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order. It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition which gives man perfect satisfaction.

"Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by others. It is not any artificial set of conventions which can be amended or repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is arbitrarily decided by one's own conscience. Dharma is beyond all questions of what is internal and what is external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has created."

	(LILA, Chapter 30)

So MU.  


Marsha


On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:14 PM, John Carl wrote:

> I agree with Ian, here.  Obviously.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
>> 
>> Steve said
>> "It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
>> nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
>> sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values."
>> 
>> Ian resonded:
>> 
> 
> 
>> It is NOT nonsense to say values choose values, or values determine
>> values - it IS reality. It is only nonsense to SOMist dreams of
>> (discrete, well defined) objectivity, that shun (apparent) logical
>> loops. Some level shifting is required.
>> 
>> We cannot solve our problems with the same kind of argumentation that
>> created them.
>> With apologies to Einstein.
>> 
>> John chimes in:
> 
> The quote I supplied a bit back, I'd hoped would  be understood, and the
> question would be settled:
> 
> 
> " What are facts?
> 
> Poincaré proceeded to examine these critically. Which facts are you going to
> observe? he asked. There is an infinity of them."
> 
> 
> 
> But in retrospect, perhaps I didn't explain the relevance of this quote
> quite aptly enough.  I'd hate to have Marsha mad at me for merely quoting
> without explaining!  And so perhaps a bit more is in order.
> 
> 
> In response to Steve and his assertion that we can't choose our preferences
> when we ARE our preferences, my hats off  for coming up with a seemingly
> elegant conundrum.  But I still, while bowing in his general direction, I
> completely disagree.
> 
> 
> Since we ARE our preference, then preference is more fundamental than
> self-dom and imho, that makes IT the methaphysical fundament.  If you mean
> by "freedom", completely independent of all factors, then For there are an
> infinity of factors which cause our behavior, and make the idea of complete
> "freedom" a ludicrous idea.  But the question remains, on which particular
> factor are  you going to choose your ultimate ending?  Where are you gonna
> analyze?  How deep and to what extent?    The whole question of what you are
> going to determine as the cause of your actions, is an open-ended question.
> 
> 
> "Which facts" can also be translated as "which factors".   Thus the question
> of what makes us do what we do, and whether we are free or not, an
> infinitely open-ended question, according to Poincare, anyway.  And me.  And
> Pirsig.
> 
> 
> and I think dmb might chime in as well...
> 
> 
> But the point I want to bring to the discussion in particular, is that this
> open-ended question, is in essence, Quality itself.  For is not the caring
> about Caring, itself enough "caring" to merit the badge?  I say so.
> 
> 
> Each stop on the path to caring, is enough caring about the ultimate
> destination, to encompass the whole of it.  I think Robert M. Pirsig might
> have not completely grasped this, but I'm sure from what he reports, that
> Phaedrus DID, and I think in the end he had enough to faith in Phaedrus's
> insight, to go along with this conclusion.  Caring about questions of free
> will, indicate enough free will to satisfy the question of whether it is
> real.  And thus  we' ve solved the problem.  Beyond that, why go there? It
> doesn't really exist, as a "problem" except in the context of a
> materialisitic (SOM) worldview and thus it's really not an "issue".  What it
> is, in fact, is the  ground of all  being.  The metaphysical fundament.
> That's what caring, is, in fact, the freedom to choose from alternatives.
> And if there is no such freedom, there is no choice.  And if there is no
> choice, then there is no Quality.  The MoQ depends utterly upon it.  As do
> I!
> 
> 
> 
>> Ian
>> PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___