[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[MarshaV]

Mark,

For me 'free will' is an intellectual static pattern of value.  If you like the pattern, than you do.  I do not like its association with the word 'will' which seems to suggest an entity acting from its own independent impetus, which I totally reject.

Concerning DQ, I cannot understand what you would expect me to say about that which is unknowable, undefinable and undividable?   'Not this, not that' seems most appropriate, and of course that would include not 'free will'.  But such a dynamic experience does establish a new appreciation for all static patterns, even 'free will'.  


Marsha



On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:30 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings Mark,
>> 
>> see below
>> 
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> I fully understand what you are saying by the not knowable stuff
>>> below.  I have been there and moved on, or maybe come back is more
>>> appropriate.
>>> 
>>> This "not D,D,K" is not an unusual way in which to present a
>>> metaphysics.  As you know, I do not care for dogmatic religions, so
>>> keep that in mind when reading the following.  It is always important
>>> to not replace the “not D,D,K” with the “D,D,K.”  Such replacement
>>> knowledge is not the real thing, but a mode of discussion.  When we
>>> wrap experience in intellectual knowledge, it is only for the purposes
>>> of experience exchange.  This is important for us to act in
>>> cooperation.
>>> 
>>> When the mystic known as Jesus tried to explain his awareness he had
>>> to do so in the vernacular of the day.  When he spoke of "our father",
>>> he was presenting an experience, and not suggesting that there was a
>>> father as is commonly understood.  Instead, the experience he had was
>>> similar to an experience of his when in the presence of his true
>>> father as a child.  He tried to project this experience in the best
>>> way he could.  Unfortunately, this experience then became D,D,K which
>>> replaced it.  Thus the rise of authoritarian religion who used these
>>> metaphors as if they were real.
>>> 
>>> This for-mentioned mystic was told that he was not allowed to have the
>>> experience he did, nor was he allowed to try to tell others about it.
>>> He, of course, did not believe that anyone should proclaim what
>>> experience anybody should or should not have, and the rest is biblical
>>> history.  This is the problem with the "leader-follower paradigm.
>>> What is first personal becomes dogmatic and then the next thing you
>>> know people are being killed in its name.
>>> 
>>> From experience we create intellectual knowledge, that is a paradigm
>>> for a progression of the subjective to the objective.  There is no
>>> reason to bar DQ from this human progression.  The purpose of the
>>> objective is simply to be able to exchange the subjective.
>>> Unfortunately such "objective" then becomes a law of sorts.
>>> Therefore, Pirsig's suggestion that we should not "define" DQ is in
>>> accordance with many philosophies (religions?) that say the same
>>> thing.  I have brought in the admonition that "one should not worship
>>> false idols" which means exactly the same thing.  That is, to not
>>> replace the subjective with the objective.  For what we have is a
>>> relationship with DQ, and not its objective (or wordy) presentation.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, if we stick true to the not D,D,K premise, we are left with
>>> not being able to discuss it.  This is the trap that David claims when
>>> he states that everything that we think of is sq.  But it is not sq,
>>> if we realize what sq really is.  It is simply an objectification for
>>> conversational purposes.  By not being allowed to discuss DQ in an
>>> objective format, we are not allowed to share experiences with other,
>>> and must remain mute on the subject (also similar the Christian vow of
>>> silence that David points to).  However, with the understanding that
>>> all we are doing is provided each other with "wrapped gifts" of
>>> experience, we do not have to succumb to the "don't speak the name of
>>> God" kind of thing.  For such a statement is dogmatic on its own and
>>> says we cannot discuss DQ.
>>> 
>>> So, your statement of "not D,D,K" is not meant to be dogma, but simply
>>> your expression that you understand that the "gifts" we give each
>>> other contain absolutely no thing, for that is DQ.  Your statement on
>>> the nature of sq or patterns is exactly the same thing.  It is an
>>> experience you have, and in turn is "no thing".  The manner in which
>>> you wrap such nothingness, is by means of rhetoric.  Any form of
>>> rhetoric is contextual and does not stand on its own, for the words
>>> are just words.  This is why I ask you to complete your rhetoric so
>>> that I can understand it.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, my "experience" of free will, is the same as my
>>> "experience" of DQ.
>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps you will call your metaphysics the Metaphysics of FreeWill.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
> 
> Don't need to.  Free will is acting from a place outside of static
> quality (or your patterns, I believe).  Where else could that be but
> DQ?
> 
> But, perhaps you could call your metaphysics the Metaphysics of
> Patterns.  That is, the metaphysics of the definable.  This could also
> be called a dictionary :-).
> 
> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I hope what I present is clear, you are not required to agree with it.
>>> I am simply presenting it as a suggestion.  How this impacts your own
>>> experience is up to your own free will.  Such a thing does not reside
>>> in the brain, but encompasses the whole body as mindfulness
>>> demonstrates.  In fact it encompasses the Dynamic.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> Dynamic Quality is not divisible, not definable and not knowable, though
>>>> it
>>>> can be experienced.
>>>> 
>>>> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent,
>>>> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to
>>>> persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ,
>>>> these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary,
>>>> hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
>>>> Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns:
>>>> patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and
>>>> conditions
>>>> (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the collection of
>>>> parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation
>>>> (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further,
>>>> these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static
>>>> pattern of life history.
>>>> 
>>>> If 'free will' is other than its definition, what is it?
>>>> 
>>>> 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