[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> No, this is not part of the Tao, it is part of a book called Knots.
>
> There are over 100 translations of the Tao into English.  It is the
> most translated text other than the Bible and the Bagavad Gita.
> (notice that the Koran does not rank).

I have the Bagavad Gita in paperback. I also have Laotzu's "The Way of 
Life", Suzuki's "Introduction to Zen Buddhism", A.J. Bahm's "Philosophy of 
the Buddha", as well as The Upanishads..  Truthfully, I never got much 
insight from these books.  Eastern mysticism seems to be more about 
psychology and the art of self-control through meditation than about 
philosophy or metaphysics.

Pirsig allegedly got his inspiration for the MoQ from Zen Buddhism.  But 
when he and Marsha (who also studies Orientalism) conclude that there is no 
self, I begin to despair that there is any hope left for Western Philosophy.

Have you heard the one about The Dalai Lama who walks into a pizzeria, steps 
up to the order counter, and asks:  "Can you make me one with everything?". 
That, to me, is the challenge of philosophy.  I've spend most of my 
"contemplative" time working my way up and down from the premise that All is 
One.

> I present Quality as a primary source in the same way as Essence
> presents itself.  I know we do not have the same definition of
> Quality, but you know what mine is, and I know what your
> definition of Essence is.  So, Not Value, Yes Quality.

That's fine, except that Pirsig equates Value with Quality and uses the 
terms  synonymously.  I prefer "Value" because it's also a verb; for 
example, one can say "I VALUE this life."

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

[Mark]:
> The breakdown occurs before that, and results in semantic
> distinctions.

The breakdown (or differential preception) of sensible Value is our 
experience of it.  The semantics are what the intellect employs to 
conceptualize and express these distinctions -- usually after they have been 
experientially objectivized.  .

> I like the triad you propose for Essential Oneness.
> In my opinion, Potentiality is primary, that is, it can be called
> the one.  Sensibility comes next, and finally Value, to complete
> the Godhead.  From these three "comes the myriad of things" (Tao).

Let's not fall into the practice of using Trinity and Godhead as descriptive 
terms.  (It will assuredly turn off the Pirsigians who detest the slightest 
taint of deism.)  Besides, there's really no "triad" implied in the concept 
that the primary source is the potentiality for creation, and that it is 
both sensible and valuable.

> ... my worldview is still somewhat juvenile.  I have lived
> on 4 separate continents about equal portions of my life and
> I can be very accommodating to different worldviews.

That's fascinating, Mark.  I've skipped over some of the biographical data 
you've supplied to others in your posts.  What are the other three 
continents you've lived on?

[Ham]:
> A while back somebody here introduced the term "co-dependent
> arising" which I think expresses the emergence of Self and Other
> without the "independent" connotation.  ... For me, the primary
> dichotomy is Sensibility/Otherness, which may be variously
> interpreted as Awareness/Beingness, Subject/Object, or
> Negate/Essent.

[Mark]
> Yes, co-dependent arising is one of the fundamental tenants of
> Buddhism.  This is what the Buddha used to achieve enlightenment.
> As presented before, there are problems with this, the major one\
> being (imo) determinism.
>
> You are beginning to sound like that German philosopher who was
> pro-Nazi, and was always talking about time and being.  I guess
> that is better than talking about Nothingness like an even more
> exasperating French guy.  Bu let me take a look at this.  Awareness
> = Subject = Negate, and, Beingness = Object = Essent.  This
> appears to create a dichotomy between the Self, and the Other.
> The only problem that I have is in considering Beingness to be
> Other.  Perhaps you can enlighten me there.

The Self/Other dichotomy is self-evident in any understanding of 
epistemology.  This
doesn't mean they are not mutually dependent; it simply means they are 
separated by their different natures.  While some use the euphemism 
"inside/outside" to represent this difference, I talk about the sensible 
(subjective) 'I' as the Self and what it experiences (objectively) as the 
Other.

[Ham]:
> 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''. ...They constitute
> our experiential reality, and to ephemeralize them demeans
> our role as value-sensible agents.

[Mark]:
> Yes, I am with you there.  I like the word Forms.  Another word
> that I use often in this forum is Appearances or Expressions.
>
> I think you are on to something here.  Maybe not for MoQ, but
> for me.  Thank you for that.

You're most welcome, Mark.  And, thank YOU for being open-minded and astute 
enough to understand me.  It's a rare pleasure, indeed, to share ideas with 
friends of the same or similar persuasion -- even when it borders on 
defection.

Your partner in apostasy,
Ham