[MD] Fw: The Quality of Free Will

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,


I am unsure how to understand the portion of the post addressed to me.  
For me, the MoQ is Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience).
Static quality represents the conventional; patterns are "conventionally" real.  
No nihilism.    


Marsha 




On Jul 30, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Greetings Joe, Hi Marsha and All --
> 
> 
> As you must be aware by now, I have problems with much of the MOQ
> terminology.  The author's metaphors and euphemisms don't help me understand
> Pirsig's reality any more than my own.  Essentially, they shroud everything known
> about the world in a "cloud of unreality".  Unreality is meaningless to me as a
> philosophy of life.
> 
> Here are two recent examples . . .
> 
> Joe writes:
>> Hi Ham and All,
>> 
>> Evolution can be described as levels in existence.  How many levels?
>> For myself I accept seven levels in existence.  Reality has a number
>> of faces.
> 
> Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels.  But WHY?
> This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let me
> count the ways".  Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic attraction
> more insightful or comprehensible?
> 
>> Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you
>> don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no".
>> "Oh My Stars!" is so much more real!
>> 
>> A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the
>> evaluation of a description of evolution.
> 
> Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of related
> things and events.  Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I
> submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as the
> primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an evaluation
> of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static patterns, conventions,
> causes and effects.  This not only avoids having to explain complex and
> largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it affords a
> conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology.
> 
> Marsha wrote:
>> I accept that duality is the convention.
>> 
>> It is static value that brings into existence the Self.  I am not
>> rejecting this convention; it is what it is.
>> 
>> If you were satisfied with conventional reality, why did you
>> put together your Essence philosophy and write your book?
>> Are the questions over for you?  Do you have all the answers?
> 
> A "convention" is an agreed practice in referencing objective phenomena, a
> symbolic 'reification' of universal experience, as opposed to descriptive
> statements or definitions.  But what does it gain us intellectually to
> simply call existence a "convention"?   And if existence is a convention,
> then you are a convention within it, and maybe Reality itself is only a
> convention.  Isn't that stretching nihilism to absurdity?
> 
> Marsha, I may not have all the answers, but I know that existence is not the
> primary reality and there is more to it than reified idioms.  I authored the
> Philosophy of Essence to put reality into a cosmological perspective.
> But if existence is only convention, as you suggrest, there's no point in
> philosophizing about it until we all wake up from this dreamlike stupor
> and have something Real to talk about.
> 
> Nihilism is for nincompoops.  Let's get REAL, folks!
> 
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
> 
> 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


 
___