[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,

To address my initial statement:  In my experience, when in the state of awareness, there is an absence of self and other.  These patterns come when awareness is dropped.  

On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Dear Marsha--
> 
> 
>> Greetings Ham,
>> 
>> My difficulty accepting your "autonomy" is that in the state
>> of awareness there is no 'I' or objects.  The self and other
>> are patterns that are applied later.
> 
> Ham:
> Which is why I ignored your protracted discussion on "reification".  How can the self be patterned after its own awareness?  And what is the point of promoting existence as a 'smoke and mirrors' illusion?  It undermines the individual, the meaning of life, and the philosopher's efforts to posit a rational theory of ultimate reality.

Marsha:
Sorry, Ham, but I am in search of 'the way things really are', or more often aren't, not just some well put-together rational system.  I  find the MoQ a good explanation of reality, and it reflects my experience.  


> Ham:
> Marsha, the world you and I live in IS "the state of awareness".  There is no existence without it.  I think Mr. Pirsig would agree with that postulate.  I don't want to be critical of anyone's personal beliefs, but I see no merit in advancing a worldview that there is nothing but reified "patterns of goodness or quality", that existence accounts for nothing, and that we are all caught up in a nihilistic dream that has no basis in reality.  Surely, this is not the philosophy that RMP had in mind.

Marsha:
A nihilistic view would be one where nothing exists.  But we have a reality of conventional, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns that are pragmatically evolving to something better.  No reason to consider this a nihilistic perspective, at least not as far as I am concerned.  We are here; that is goodness.  The question becomes how to understand the awareness, and how will these new insights affect our understanding for the better.  I disagree that the MoQ, or I, foster the attitude "that existence counts for nothing."  The more one becomes aware and understands patterns, the more one appreciates them, and appreciates that some patterns are much more valuable than others.   And on evaluation, one appreciates that one does not always have to be possessed by them.  


> Ham:
> It doesn't take a philosopher or a theologian to realize that "I am" is what makes existence factual.  

Marsha:
I don't know what you mean by factual. I reject the notion of an autonomous controlling "I" that is calling all the shots for an individual's behavior.  I find "I am" a highly repeated pattern.  That doesn't make it meaningless; it just doesn't make it real in any independent, substantial  or absolute way.  


> Ham:
> When you deny the self, you are rejecting the agent of Value from which your reality is constructed.

Marsha:
I do not deny the individual, only an INDEPENDENT self.  

> Ham:
> (Try to imagine that reality in your absence.)   

Marsha:
Imagine?  I do not get the point of the exercise.  Absence?  I do not understand exactly what type of imagination you wish me to apply.  


> Ham:
> Philosophy starts with this self-evident premise and works toward a plausible conception of ultimate reality with the understanding that nothing comes from nothingness.

Marsha:
I believe the MoQ starts with the premise that Reality = Quality (Experience).  In my experience, that is true.  And for me, experience has proven to be either unpatterned or patterned.  


> Ham:
> Even you would have to concede that the world of appearances is not nothing, that even a phantasmagorical reality has an ultimate source.  And if the intelligent design of this universe is not worthy of metaphysical analysis, and your 'I' is no more than a dream pattern, why bother to explore philosophy?

Marsha:
What I concede is that reality = experience(unpatterned experience/patterned experience).   In the MoQ, experience is Value, or Quality (Dynamic/static).  


> Ham:
> Sorry to be so harsh, Marsha, but you appear to be stretching Qualityistic idealism to the point of absolute nihilism.  And that is a credo I cannot accept.

Marsha:
I do not hold such a view.  I do think that patterns have a relationship with consciousness.   I have never said that Quality is ONLY a conceptual activity.  


> Ham:
> If I'm wrong, please restore my faith in your intellectual judgment.

Marsha:
I hope I have at least corrected some misconceptions.  


> Kindest regards,
> Ham


Kindest regards to you too, 

Marsha
 
___