[MD] Free will according to the MOQ

[MarshaV]

 Mark,

I experience only a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.  The 'self' can best be represented by the tetralemma formulation.

-------------   

"This formulation is a tool towards understanding concepts such as the not-self (or anatta) doctrine that is not handled particularly well by binary logic. So, as with every static value pattern, the notion of the ‘self’ in Buddhist philosophy is not simply considered an ‘illusion’ or an entity (as claimed by some Christian understandings of the ‘soul’) with an inherent self-existence.

     "That is, everything exists by being related to everything else (‘dependent co- 
   origination’ is the usual term), but does not exist by itself. There is no way to
   state this in a way that conforms to Aristotelian logic. Hence the need for the 
   logic of contradictory identity. The self exists by negating itself, as Nishida puts
    it. So, the phrase ‘the self is an illusion’ is just as much an error in Buddhist 
   philosophy as ‘the self exists’. The traditional Buddhist formulation is the 
   tetralemma:

                                          One cannot say that the self exists. 
                                    One cannot say that the self does not exist. 
                              One cannot say that self both exists and does not exist. 
                         One cannot say that the self neither exists nor does not exist.
                                                            (Roberts, 2004)

"Though he doesn’t knowingly employ the logic of the tetralemma, Pirsig does share numerous ontological beliefs with Buddhist philosophy such as Nagarjuna’s (c.300a, p.251) perception that the unconditioned (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static):

     In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and contingency 
   belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also saying that all things 
   ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that within the heart of every 
   conditioned entity (as its core, as its true essence, as its very real nature) there is 
   the indeterminate dharma. While the one expresses the transcendence of the 
   ultimate reality, the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the 
   ultimate reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, 
   but is the real nature of the determinate itself. 
                                                           (Cooper,2002)   

     (McWatt, A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality,pp.55-56)
 
-------------    


 Marsha   
  

On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, 118 wrote:

> Marsha,
> Are you speaking in theory?  Your posts definitely suggest that you truly believe it exists.  For example every time you use the pronoun "I".  It is fine to deal in theories if they can be substantiated.  It is better to post on our realities if they exist. 
> 
> I could say that nothing exists in theory and that we should drop that word from our vocabulary since it only misdirects.  So, if the self does not exist, there is no need to describe it other than "non-existent".  Is this where you are at with your metaphysics?  If so, then I must caution you that you are in a cul-de-sac, on a very long and rewarding road.  Accept your existence as analogy and move on.  All in MHO.
> 
> If the self does not exist, then what does it?  Ball in your court, love-love.
> Mark
> 
> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:57 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> The self neither exists, nor doesn't exist, nor both exists & doesn't exist, nor neither exists and doesn't exist. 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:44 AM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> OK, so you do believe in the existence of Self, my mistake.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:45 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sure one can deny the existence of Self like Marsha does,
>>>>> but that is nonsense.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I deny the existence of an independent, autonomous self. The 
>>>> "self" is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent 
>>>> and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social 
>>>> and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 



 
___