[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mark,

I meant only that to take my non-response to a post or point as an agreement would be a mistake.  I often have no opinion concerning your rhetoric.  


Marsha 



On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

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