[MD] Free Will

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --

On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Everything in existence is individuated from every other.  That includes
> human beings.  If you are persuaded that the self-evident fact of human
> individuality is a "crapshoot", it's your problem, not mine.

On 6/30/11 2:07 PM, "Joseph  Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> responded:
> There are two meanings to the word "One".  There is a quantity (logical),
> intellectual meaning, indicating that something follows 1 like 2. There is 
> a
> quality (evolutionary) meaning that existence is 1 and is divided into
> levels, evolution.
>
> Mathematics and Metaphysics.  Metaphysical 1 is not followed by 2, but
> describes individuality in levels in existence, evolution.  Quantitative 1
> is an intellectual crapshoot, how many?
>
> Or maybe not!

On 6/30/11 7:40 PM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> commented:
> Hi Joe,
> Then why even use the term 1?

Joe is a numbers man who thinks that numerical equations define Truth. 
Since metaphysics is expressed in words and concepts, it has no validity for 
him.  He doesn't seem to understand that individuality is not a numbered 
level or quantitative value but the systematic form of existence.

But Joe is not alone in refusing to acknowledge the individual agent, Mark. 
I'm constantly amazed at the chicanery and deception employed here to evade 
the subjective self which is the very agent of will.  Whether it's the claim 
that the subjective 'I' is a creation of the "social level", or the notion 
that selfness is a set of "interrelated patterns", the general consensus 
seems to be that Pirsig's thesis would fall apart if the free agent were 
anything but an illusion.  Only indefinable DQ is allowed the distinction of 
free agency.  Or, as Marsha says, "to the extent that we follow static 
quality, there is no choice.  By following Dynamic Quality, we are free."

We can only try, Mark.

Thanks, as always, for your support,
--Ham