[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[MarshaV]

Greeting Mark,


On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:26 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

To imagine such would make you mistaken.  

Marsha 


> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>