From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 00:11:08 BST
Hi Pi and August,
>The point you bring up about "free will" deserves a new thread because it
>is too much of a tangent. In short, as I understand it, under MOQ, human
>choice and the choices a lightning makes are not very different. Just
>because we can predict path of a lightining bolt with some accuracy does
>not imply that it does not have a choice. A lightining bolt "chooses" a
>path of highest quality and so do each of us. But let us start a new
>thread if anyone would like to examine this tangent in more detail.
While I don't think free will is tangential to a "man-made or natural?"
thread at all, I'm very happy to start a thread about this. I think this
topic is misunderstood a lot here, and that means morality is misunderstood
and belittled. Understanding that what we choose to do is dependent on
Quality (aka Morality, Reality) is key to properly respecting quality and
morality. Believing in free will insults Quality and removes yourself from
history.
I think you are right Pi that lightning and human choices are not different.
They both choose the path of highest perceived quality at the moment of
choosing. Note though, that what they perceive is dependent on the quality,
not on them (the quality creates the perceiver and the perceived). Thus, at
the moment of choosing, they are both bound to choose the path that quality
(morality) presents to them. Lightning can not choose any path but the one
that appears best, and neither can we. We can deliberate longer than
lightning, but in the final analysis, the action that we do is always what
appears best, it is what we want to do most at that moment.
I recommend Jonathan Edwards (or books about him) as he is the brightest
light on the subject, and absolutely up to date and compatible with the MoQ.
I'm going to type in some excerpts from some books about him (James
Carse's in particular, Sang Hyun Lee's also) soon that ought to leave
MoQ'ers mouths agape.
BTW, it's Edwards 300th birthday this year! I think I will try to attend
this symposium:
http://www.yale.edu/wje/html/JE-300.html
Johnny
>Hi August,
>
>Thanks for bringing up that example. What I am trying to point out is that
>the tree is *not* the same whether you see it or not! It is completely
>dependent on the viewer. I believe it was in LILA where Pirsig mentioned
>that when we blink, the reason we don't think that the world has ended is
>because of the "continuation" static intellectual pattern that we have
>adopted. Your tree example is very similar. One other example I would like
>to point out from Pirsig is from zmm. Recall his rant about gravity not
>existing before Newton coined the term and developed the theory. I would
>like to invite you to explain this example using your theory of
>perception.
>
>The point you bring up about "free will" deserves a new thread because it
>is too much of a tangent. In short, as I understand it, under MOQ, human
>choice and the choices a lightning makes are not very different. Just
>because we can predict path of a lightining bolt with some accuracy does
>not imply that it does not have a choice. A lightining bolt "chooses" a
>path of highest quality and so do each of us. But let us start a new
>thread if anyone would like to examine this tangent in more detail.
>
>Take care,
>
>- Pi
>
>
>On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
>
> > Pi
> >
> > Even if I have never seen a tree; its shape and
> > structure is the same whether I personally, as an
> > individual have seen it or not. Perception is
> > relative to an individual, just as choices are. As a
> > human I have a choice, a conscience
> > choice about what I do next, nature doesn't. While
> > lightning may "jump" rain drops to get to the ground
> > following the path of least resistance; it has no
> > choice about this property (quality) of lightning (and
> > electricity in general). It works the same everytime.
> >
> > Does this example help?
> > -August
> >
> > P.S. Anyone read "Faster than the Speed of Light"? I
> > can't remember the author's name, I remember he is
> > Portugese though. Speed of Light was variable to
> > overcome the Horizon Problem in the Big Bang Theory;
> > it is strictly theortical, but very, very interesting.
> >
> > --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi August,
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree. I don't think there is any
> > > thing called
> > > "absolute perfection". A tree is not a tree (as we
> > > usually define it) to a
> > > person who has never seen one. The tree is different
> > > for this person.
> > > Perhaps this person is blind and only knows a tree
> > > by the way it sounds
> > > (during a windy night) or the way it feels. It is a
> > > perfect tree for this
> > > person; Just like how it is a perfect tree for you.
> > > But it is *not*
> > > absolute.
> > >
> > > Similarly, 'a' is just a bunch of squigly lines to a
> > > person who doesn't
> > > read english (or any syntactically similar
> > > language). Perhaps it is not
> > > even a bunch of lines for this person if they do not
> > > know the concept
> > > of lines! 'a' is still "perfect" for this person.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the real point I want to stress with these
> > > examples is that
> > > absolute perfection does not exist because we all do
> > > not share
> > > intellectual patterns. If we did, there would be no
> > > need for a discussion
> > > forum. ;) An object you touch/see/feel/smell/taste
> > > is only there as a
> > > static intellectual pattern.
> > >
> > > And, yes, I do agree with the later part about
> > > "relative perfection". I
> > > think I have reinstated that point with the examples
> > > above.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > >
> > > - Pi
> > > http://pirsig.ath.cx
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pi;
> > > >
> > > > I think Nic may mean "perfect" in the sense
> > > that
> > > > trees are always trees; that an object is an
> > > object;
> > > > that a is a, is always perfect. This is a
> > > definition
> > > > of "perfect" that is absoulte. Writing a perfect
> > > essay
> > > > would however, be relative; as you indicated. It
> > > is
> > > > however, not impossiable to be "realtively
> > > perfect".
> > > > i.e. an essay that accomplishes all its goals
> > > would be
> > > > "relatively perfect".
> > > >
> > > > -August
> > > > --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thing I would like to point out is that
> > > > > there no `absolute
> > > > > perfection'. When you say "...the perfection in
> > > any
> > > > > essay...", you seem to
> > > > > be referring to some absolute definition of
> > > > > perfection. As I understand
> > > > > it, the definition of perfection is very
> > > relative to
> > > > > our own static
> > > > > patterns of quality. For example, I believe that
> > > > > Pirsig's ZMM is an
> > > > > excellent book, but obviously everyone who has
> > > read
> > > > > the book does not
> > > > > share this opinion.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
> > > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > >
> > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> > > instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
>http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 00:11:45 BST