[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Marsha,
Are you saying I am mistaken from my point of view, or from yours?
How does your relativity theory work with this?

If your imaginings are your reality, can't mine be mine?

What experience do you use to justify your claim that I am mistaken?
Or is this outside of your reality as experience?

Mark

On 3/2/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> 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
>