[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Hi Ham,

Thought I should clear up the fact that I do not deny a "subjective self".  Upon investigation, I have found no evidence of an autonomous self.  And the credit for the excellent paraphrasing "to the extent that we follow static quality, there is no choice.  By following Dynamic Quality, we are free." should go to Dan.  

The videos on the reflective self (Weren't they great!) discussed the self in many, very subtle ways.  I am sure there are areas where we could find agreement, at least in a conventional way.  I ordered the book, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self ' by Miri Albahari, that was so often mentioned.  (Fun, summer reading! )  But of course, all this scientific/philosophic discussion concerning the mind/self is still of a conventional/static nature.  


Marsha
 


On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 



 
___