From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 00:22:19 GMT
> Hi Steve, Patrick:
>
>> Steve writes:
>> I also wanted to get to Platt's statement about randomness. This is an
>> issue that I have wrestled with for a long time (since I am a statistics
>> teacher) and I am hopeful that moq can clear it up as it has done for other
>> Platypi.
>
> IMO, chance, luck, randomness are all synonyms for "unknown cause,"
> I base my view on Pirsig's observation in Lila:
>
> "The more you try to say what randomness is the less random it
> becomes." (5)
>
>> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says there is a veil behind which we
>> can't look. But is this veil like my hand covering up the coin?--a
>> determined outcome that we just can't know--or is it true randomness behind
>> this veil? For that matter, has every outcome already been determined?
>> What about free will?
>>
>> I understand that this dilemma is a result of subject-object thinking, but
>> can moq sort it out?
>
Platt:
> From Lila, Chap. 12 comes the solution to the determinism-free will
> platypus:
>
> 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. (12)
>
Steve says:
Thanks, Platt. This is very helpful.
"Following" DQ makes us free. Chaining ourselves to a free master?
Interesting.
I guess since DQ is un-definable an example of a free choice would be too
much to ask? How do we recognize the free choice?
This idea gets us out of determinism only if it really is possible to escape
static patterns. How do we know freedom is possible? How do we know that
there really is DQ and not just patterns? Is this a question of faith?
The ideas of karma and Enlightenment are related to this understanding of
freedom. Darrell mentioned karma earlier, and I wanted to mention my
understanding of karma because I think it differs, though I couldn't find
his post. (There are probably lots of different definitions floating around
out there that appear different but all point to the same part of eastern
culture that can't be directly translated for westerners.)
Anyway, my understanding is that karma means causation. The Mystic is the
one who contends that the world of karma the endless and beginningless
chain of causes--is our most fundamental delusion and is what he hopes to
escape. In other words, the idea of Enlightenment includes the idea that it
is possible to escape the world of causation, i.e. the world of karma, i.e.
determinism. Determinism is a prison of our own making through clinging to
static patterns.
Combining this idea of karma with Pirsig's definition of freedom as not
being bound by static patterns connects freedom and enlightenment for me.
This also fits Spinoza's idea of freedom perfectly. It is interesting when
great thinkers and mystics come from such different angles and end up at the
same place.
Steve
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:07 GMT