very correct Dan,But wat it probably really is, is a rechewing/rehashing of the annotations again.
The part on freedom will and choice. What the work is telling us,is that free will is not in conflict with the metaphysiks of Quality as long as it is not in coflict with the patterns of the bigger frame of nature itself free will does not work on the patterns of evolution,science or nature. Think simply of electricity. We can have the freedom and the will to use it freely, or to reject it totally. However we cannot de-invent it by an act of free will or choice,but John keeps ridiculing it by moving it into a reduction ad absurdum. or by hashing it away in some homebrew-drivel. think of the pattern of life, as in choice to live or to die by act of free will or choice. Free will in this example only will count for the individual, not for the collective conciousness pattern as a total. Not thinking about the ocean by act of free will or choice, will not make it to dissapear. You have the free choice to swim or to dive in the ocean, even to swallow a part of it,.. but denying the ocean by an act of choice or free will is insane.Nothing else. Additionaly,Dan, i agree that determinism as a tool is part of the moq,but used as a laserscalpel in the hands of a geniouss and surely not to be handled as a blunt axe in the hands of an idiot. If John's basic set-up is to be derived from a limp inductive/deductive reasoning, we will not have concluding determinisme, or correct determinism a such. Nobody will get anywhere, by simply creating own variables and observables. Correction,you will only get away with them , if they make sense. Sorry for my flaming up Dan, ..will make it up to you. Thx for reading. Adrie 2011/3/22 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > 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 > -- parser 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
