ROGER ATTEMPTS TO SUMMARIZE SOME
PATTERNS WITHIN THE CONVERSATION ON
FREE WILL AND THEN ADDRESS SOME Q'S
To David, Struan, David, Denis, Diana and Rich and squad;
We are sooooo close to agreement it is amazing. The vast majority of members
are rephrasing the theme that the solution to the so-called Free Will dilemma
involves redefining the self away from a discrete objective subject.
Below are some examples:
DMB ON RICH:
"According to Pirsig, there is no independent "self" which
has a "will" and so there is no question...". There is no reason to beat
"our Cartesian heads against this non-substantial wall."
ROG QUOTING NISHIDA:
"We usually contend that the will is free. But what is this so-called
freedom? We think we can desire anything, but that simply means that it is
possible for us to desire. Its not so much that "I" produce desires, but
that actualized patterns are none other than me."
DENIS:
My intentions, my will, all those "my"s are beautiful but
ultimately useless. They own "me", not the other way round.
We are our values, so "my" intentions and desires define
"me". "Me" doesn't produce them as if by magic.
DLT:
It is more reasonable, under the MoQ, to expand the concept of self to
include all those discreet
stable patterns of value that are "You" manifest by a continuous, but
discreet, stream of dynamic
events occurring within a much larger, universal, field of dynamic events;
AND EVEN STRUAN:
Our desires, intentions, minds, brains, bodies and
environments are all part of one inseparable
system and all contribute to the direction the system
takes, thus the definition above is fulfilled.
Not complete harmony, but pretty darn close!
********OTHER FREE WILL ISSUES***********
Below are a few other outstanding issues that David has asked......
DMB:
Free will. Why doesn't it come up in the MOQ?
ROG:
The dilemma does not come up because it is rooted in SOM's separate
subject/object relationships.
The next issue was where David rightfully pointed out that my explanation of
the Free Will dilemma was just more SOM.
I wrote:
"When the definition of you matches with the predominant
value pattern, it is 'free will'. When it doesn't, it is 'against your
will'. "
DMB:
Its seems you've changed the vocabulary, but end up with a version of the
SOM representational thing with this "matching" business...? Maybe I'm just
not quite "getting" it. I don't think we get to "choose" which of these
patterns we'd like to be. We're the whole forest, right? Could you please
clear this area up for me? Its interesting, and it seems critical to the
overall picture.
ROG:
I think we are in perfect agreement. I was indeed clarifying a
subject/object version of Free Will using MOQ concepts . If we take the MOQ
mystic view and our "self is the whole forest" the issue surely dissolves.
The MOQ not only works within this intellectual problem better than SOM can
(meaning it can address the issue without contradictions), it also at a
deeper mystic level points out there really is no issue at all.
This then leads to David's question on the nature of self.....
DMB:
How is the MOQ's concept of "self" so different from SOM's that the
issue of free will can disappear? How are questions of free will shown to be
bad questions, wrong questions, by the MOQ?
ROG:
I think Diana summarized it nicely:
"There is no self in the way we are used to thinking of the self, ie a kind
of consciousness sitting behind our eyes controlling and making decisions
for us. But the MOQ does not deny the subject altogether, it just relegates
it to an intellectual pattern. "
In the MOQ, Free Will and the Self are intellectual patterns that are judged
based on their quality. The measures of quality include logical consistency,
clarity, conclusiveness and most importantly concurrence with direct
experience. I believe this also addresses Denis' denial of free will and
Peter's concerns over whether there really is an absolute answer to the issue.
Roger
PS -- I find it curious that the SOM topic was shifted (by popular demand) to
the other forum when it originally started here as a lively debate with
Struan on his contrarian views. He has been virtually the sole defender of
the 'con' position for a month, and rather than resolve it here some members
actually moved it to the forum where his views won't be heard. Yet his
opinions are still being specifically attacked. Bad form!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST