[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[Ham Priday]

G'day Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Wrath is sometimes good if it is not misplaced.  In a recent
> post to Marsha, I reiterated my position on Quality as "Unity".
> For this I use the analogy from the Tao Te Ching.  That is,
> Quality creates the One which creates the two...  So, in my
> opinion, Quality can not equal Reality.  I believe you will agree,
> in this sense, that Quality does equal your Essence.  Your
> wrath is therefore not directed at me (phew!).

I am not a scholar of Taoism, and find these "insights" rather confusing. 
Whatever "creates" is primary to what is created.  If, as you say, Quality 
creates the One, then Quality is the primary source, whether you call it 
Quality or Reality.  I tend to follow the epistemological approach which 
views Quality (Value) as an emotional, aesthetic, or moral appraisalor 
judgment.  According to this epistemology, there is no Value in the absence 
of a sensible agent, thus refuting the premise that Value is primary.

The breakdown of these terms occurs only in existence where the finite 
intellect makes such semantic distinctions.  From the absolute perspective 
there are no distinctions, since Essential Oneness is the unity of Value, 
Sensibility, and Potentiality.

Incidentally, I bear no grudge or "wrath" against those who are persuaded by 
other ideologies, whether they're liberals, agnostics, atheists, or 
Qualityists.  (As an octogenarian, I learned long ago that there are all 
kinds of people, and none of them can be expected to hold precisely the same 
worldview that I do.)

> My question on negation was more directed to the following:
> According to your new word (in my interpretation), Self and Other
> rise independently.  Therefore there is no need for negation to
> be invoked.  How then does negation fit within your ontology?

A while back somebody here introduced the term "co-dependent arising" which 
I think expresses the emergence of Self and Other without the "independent" 
qualifier.  I reserve "independence" for the autonomous will once the 
individuated Self is created.  For me, the primary dichotomy is 
Sensibility/Otherness, which may be variously interpreted as 
Awareness/Beingness, Subject/Object, or Negate/Essent.

The point that needs to be made here is that the terms "levels", "patterns", 
and "forms" all allude to the differentiated (contrapositional?) mode of 
existence.  They should not be taken to mean that subjects and objects, time 
and space, and good and bad are unreal or "illusory''.  Plurality and 
contrariety are the very attributes of which our differentiated world is 
constructed.  They constitute our experiential reality, and to ephemeralize 
them demeans our role as value-sensible agents.

Essentially yours,
Ham