[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[MarshaV]

Theism is an intellectual static pattern of value, how long do you want to devote to discussing theism?   



On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:33 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:06 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: valkyr at att.net
>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:18:56 -0400
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality of Free Will
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:45 AM, 118 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes, Marsha,
>>>> This is the conundrum that you put yourself into imho.
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> The only conundrum that I experience is that language is based 
>>> on differentiated experience: subject, predicate & object. Of freewill, 
>>> determinism and causation, I neither accept them nor reject them.  
>>> They are static patterns of value, sometimes useful illusions and 
>>> sometimes not. As static patterns of value, they are not Ultimately Real.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The relegation of free-will to one of a pattern is a common mistake.
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Within the MoQ, there is only Dynamic Quality and static quality 
>>> as static patterns of value.   Free-will is an intellectual pattern.
>>> That which best represent what is free, on the other hand,  is 
>>> explained in Chapter 12 of LILA:
>>> 
>> Pirsig said:
>> "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."
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> It seems that a lot of the debate centers around the interpretation of these two sentences. Steve, for example, keeps saying that it makes no sense to say we are free to choose our values because we ARE those values. He also seems to think that rejecting SOM means all issues of freedom and control are rendered meaningless. Likewise, Marsha says Free-will is an intellectual pattern, a useful illusion. 
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I probably should have written 'free-will is an intellectual pattern, a sometimes useful pattern, but an illusion, and NOT Ultimate Reality.'   If you want to argue from a som point-of-view (concerning a subject's free-will), please discuss freewill vs. determinism as long as it pleases you.  From a MoQ, point-of-view, it isn't relevant, and I don't find it very interesting.  Further I don't find your interpretation of RMP clear or accurate as stated.  
> 
> I neither accept free-will, nor deny free-will.  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___