[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Marsha,
Free will is not a static pattern of value, only it's definition is.
Yes, I agree with the quote below under my terms.  I imagine that you
do to since you did not find flaw in my interpretation.  It certainly
does not present everything as patterns of value, that is for sure.
How do you work with the statement below, and your claim of patterns
being the best way to represent your reality?

Just trying to understand your metaphysics.

Thanks,
Mark

On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
> However you define 'free will' it is a static pattern of value.  I find
> RMP's statement far more appropriate:  "To the extent that one's behavior is
> controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice.  But to the
> extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's
> behavior is free."
>     (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12)
>
> As far as the rest of your post, it seems like a scientific fur-ball, that
> is, it seems like some likely terms scrambled in an unrecognizable mess, so
> no comment.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:45 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> He says much more about free will than that.  If you have an
>> electronic copy of Lila (which I do not, a word search will pull this
>> out.  You can also do a Google book search, which is not as good.
>>
>> It is not "my free will", I am simply taking what RMP says about free
>> will being assumed by everything.  It makes sense for expounding on
>> the Moral fabric of the universe.  For if we have to do things, we
>> cannot say that we are moral, can we.
>>
>> What Pirsig is presenting below (to put it in context), in my opinion,
>> is the traditional nature v nurture argument.  That is, we can reflect
>> on reality as somewhat determined, and somewhat free.  Because we
>> reify the world into static patterns of value, the nature of such
>> reification is somewhat determined by the structure of our brains.
>> What we do with such static presentation is not.  So, Pirsig is not
>> saying anything new here, just presenting it in MoQ terminology.  Of
>> course this is just a manner of presentation of his, and he would not
>> claim such a thing to be True, as science tends to do.
>>
>> He also points out with the quote below, that "one" is separate from
>> the static patterns of Quality.  In that way "one" can be controlled
>> by such.  This would point to the existence of Self, in my opinion.
>> Otherwise he would have said that static patterns are
>> "selfcontroling".  Do you see what I am getting at here.  The rhetoric
>> reveals the existence of self, even if the rhetoric is conventional.
>>
>> By "following DQ" he means acting within DQ.  This is indeed what free
>> will does.  Since DQ is not definable, neither is free will.  For
>> something cannot act within no thing, only no thing can do that.
>> Othewise it would become a thing and not be acting "within" or
>> following the paradigm of DQ.
>>
>> I hope I have made my opinion clear.  You do not have to agree with
>> it, it is simply my view.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I know nothing of your 'free will', but I do know that RMP has said "To
>>> the
>>> extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it
>>> is
>>> without choice.  But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
>>> which
>>> is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
>>>    (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12)
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:05 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> I don't think I am confusing existences.  What you are presenting are
>>>> contingencies.  That is that patterns can only change because of
>>>> pre-existing conditions.  This would appear to be a deterministic
>>>> outlook.
>>>> Thus, the individual (of whatever nature) has no free will at it's
>>>> disposal.  Pirsig states that "everything" has free will.  By my
>>>> interpretation, this is DQ.  It makes the unfolding of reality
>>>> "unpredictable" at the individual level.  This then brings in the
>>>> concept
>>>> of individual responsibility, and thus the Moral fabric of reality.
>>>>
>>>> No matter how innumerable the causes you envision, there does not seem
>>>> to
>>>> be room for morality.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see how your
>>>> patterns approach leaves room for free will.  I am interested to see how
>>>> I
>>>> can be corrected in my logic.
>>>>
>>>> Patterns, if not completely tied to previous patterns, can change
>>>> through
>>>> the principles of free will.  In this way they are not the inevitable
>>>> result of an ultimately predictable original idea, be it the big bang or
>>>> some intelligent design.
>>>>
>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:17 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to confuse having "no independent existence" with having 'no
>>>>> existence' at all, but this is not what I am saying.  From a static
>>>>> (conventional) point-of-view, individuals conceptualize patterns into
>>>>> distinct entities.  Patterns appear to exist in their own right, but if
>>>>> they did exist in their own right, THEN, they would be permanent and
>>>>> could never change or evolve.  Patterns exist dependent on innumerable
>>>>> causes and conditions (patterns); patterns exist dependent on parts
>>>>> (patterns);  patterns exist in dependence upon a conceptual designation
>>>>> (patterns).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:15 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Marsha,
>>>>>> If patterns have no independent existence, how is it that you
>>>>>> recognize them as distinct patterns?  What you are really saying is
>>>>>> that there is only one pattern, that spreads about, co-operating with
>>>>>> itself.  What makes you want to divide them up into many?  Are you the
>>>>>> pattern separator?  Why would you even want to do that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to your metaphysics, Static Quality cannot exist in stable
>>>>>> patterns since such patterns do not exist; we only have a monistic
>>>>>> pattern.  Where would you say your plurality of patterns comes from if
>>>>>> they have no inherent existence?  With your inclusion of all into one
>>>>>> pattern, are you speaking of God?
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/29/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tuukka,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nonrelativizably"?  It is you who are exhibiting stuckness in some
>>>>>>> post-modern philosophical,  muddled thinking (words and concepts), or
>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>> Plato's distortion.  Either way it is stuckness.  You are stuck in
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> representation of relativity.  Let go of that.  That understanding is
>>>>>>> static.  Move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quality may be compared to quantum physics's nonlocality.  Statics
>>>>>>> quality
>>>>>>> exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns have
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> independent existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
> 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
>