Hello everyone On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:32 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mary: > > I think Pirsig would probably say free-will becomes a non-issue. One >> platypus down. >> >> John: > > I agree he'd say it, and even did, pretty much, in the passage I was > refering to dan, but I think one very valid definition of "issue" is > something that somebody makes important. And even if we'uns have got the > whole thing figured out slick as snot and in our back pockets, for lots of > people it's a real bugaboo and they keep asking the same questions about it > over and over. They make it a philosophical issue, and if we have it > solved, we oughta be able to explain it all. Doncha think?
Dan: I don't know what you're talking about here, John. Perhaps you could clarify what passage you are referring to me? >John: > My problem, is that when I ask for some explanation, I get a lot of abuse > and obfuscation and spluttering of various kinds. No real well-thought > answers at all. It's sadly disappointing to me, because I believe the MoQ > is an excellent metaphysical foundation for thought, and you'd expect a > little more quality intellect than I find amongst its fiercest advocates. Dan: This is disconcerting to read. Apparently I (and many others here) have done nothing but waste time in attempting to offer up our interpretations of the MOQ. If you honestly believe the MOQ is an excellent metaphysical foundation for thought, why don't you practice it? Like I told you before, I've seen nothing in your posts that is indicative of it. You have seemingly very little regard for its author and even less for those who've studied it for years, as evidenced here. >John: > But I do believe it's important to assert that Quality is co-fundamental > with Free Will. You literally cannot have Quality when you literally have > no choice. Therefore, Quality is dependent upon Choice and unlike Ham > asserts, Choice is also dependant upon the existence of Quality. There must > be a criterion for the better alternative, in order for choice to be real. Dan: Again, when I read passages like this, you seem to have little to no grasp of the MOQ. Free will and determinism are both correct within the MOQ. So to make statements like: "You literally cannot have Quality when you literally have no choice" literally make no sense. Dan 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
