[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[118]

Hi Steve,
Thank you for the question.  I will again try to explain my
understanding of MoQ.

Quality is neither a property of the subject or the object.  It is
what "lies between".  I have spent many posts explaining this but will
try again.  Objects (or subjects) do not contain Quality; they express
it.  What we note about an object is its expression.  We cannot know
the fundamental nature of an object, only those qualities which are
imparted by it.

I realize that this "in between" causes confusion, and Ham and I went
back and forth on it.  As you know, the subject/object divide does not
work with MoQ.  As I understand it, some where barred from this forum
for attempting to do just that.  So, let me think of an analogy.  When
we are on a boat on the ocean.  We do not feel the ocean, what we feel
is the expression of the ocean through waves.  The waves are a Quality
of the ocean.  We go up and down in rhythm to that Quality.  It is not
a far step to see that this is the same as our relation to objects, or
the cosmos in general.

If you ask more questions, perhaps I can see where you are stuck.

All the best,
Mark

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Since you insist that one must accept the underlying premise in a
> dilemma such as this where one must seemingly either support the
> notion of free will or by default be revealed to accept determinism,
> perhaps you can tell me: Is Quality a property of the subject or of
> the object? (Your answer will indicate whether you know the very first
> thing about the MOQ.)
>
> Thank you in advance for your enlightening response,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:45 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, Marsha,
>> This is the conundrum that you put yourself into imho.
>>
>> The relegation of free-will to one of a pattern is a common mistake.
>> This is a primary mistake that the last Buddha made.  Determinism
>> results in monism.  That is, there is nothing new after the beginning,
>> and everything unfolds according to the great architect which some
>> call God.  This is rooted in a fundamental lack of self-reliance where
>> responsibility is an anathema.  Even Buddha saw this and attempted to
>> get around it.  For if one is not responsible, how then does one care
>> for all sentient beings?  If one is not responsible, then why come
>> back as a Bodhisattva?
>>
>> The opposite, that of free will is representative of the Conservative
>> premise as opposed to the Liberal.  A fundamental notion of
>> responsibility is key to this country.  However such a thing is
>> threatening; what if one makes a mistake?  And so, the pluralistic
>> outlook is hidden with rhetoric.  Even W. James saw the vast
>> difference between the monistic view and the dualistic (or more) one.
>> He was firmly on the side of Paganism, and paved the way for modern
>> philosophy as well as psychology.  Carl Jung also furthered this
>> effort.  The sense of the Archetype assumed more than one such
>> Archetype as opposed to a single unfolding source.
>>
>> You are sounding like Steven, who contradicts himself often.  He
>> states that we "bring meaning with us" and then he goes no to state
>> that meaning is provided us through deterministic processes.  This is
>> really the key to the argument.  Quality is either provided us, or
>> created by us.  I know which side Ham sits on, and he is the most
>> consistent one I know.  Many throw curve balls, but his hitting is
>> true.  While there is no such thing as a home-run in this debate, many
>> choose to walk to base, or get hit by a pitch rather than see the
>> light at the end of the field.  It is in the bleachers where passion
>> lives, not in the expensive sealed off boxes.
>>
>> If you choose determinism, then there is no way of getting back to
>> free will, it is impossible.  However, if you choose free-will, then
>> you can always change your mind.  It is much easier to go from two to
>> one, than from one to two.  As you know, according to Tao, the Tao
>> creates the one which creates the two.  This natural order is reversed
>> by the thinking brain.
>>
>> Perhaps you are considering reconsidering your position?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
> 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
>