In a message dated 8/20/02 12:57:55 PM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
> To put it simply, free will and determinism are not reconciled by Pirsig's
> explanation.
>
> John B
>
Hi John,
Interesting.
This is how i see it:
YOU may be described as having static and dynamic aspects.
YOU ARE static patterns capable developing dynamic dispositions.
When dynamic dispositions are dominant, YOU disappear!
That which is dissolute cannot choose, however: to choose dissolution itself
is the best YOU can do.
See?
The whole freedom thing is a bit of a nonsense but valued by egoists because
the egoist finds the suggestion that he is completely dominated by quality to
be an offensive one.
I feel this agrees with what you tracked down in Pirsig's work?
On page 199 in my 'borrowed' copy of Up from Eden, Wilber, (Christ! Am i
actually going to quote Wilber ladies and to some extent gentlemen? NO! Here,
Wilber is busy doing his usual trick of quoting LARGE sections of other works
- in this case Whyte!) delves into the illusion of ego.
Its not a new idea but it is central to the rather arrogant view that there
are personal identities which may choose?
The US constitution is founded on the Lockean notion that spiritual
substances hide behind Newtonian packets of laws we call, 'Free people?' This
is why egocentric Americans value freedom but have no cultural patterns with
which to enjoy quality?
Its all a bit off?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST