re 2011/3/26 Dan Glover <[email protected]>
> Hello everyone > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > wrote: > > very correct Dan,But wat it probably really is, is a rechewing/rehashing > of > > the annotations again. > > Hi Adrie > > Yes, you're right. > > >Adrie: > > 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. > > Dan: > I tend to agree with you here. > > > >Adrie: > > 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. > > Dan: > It is curious that Nicola Tesla invented the electric motor over a > hundred years ago and yet it has never been improved upon, don't you > think? > > >Adrie: > > 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. > > Dan: > I am not sure there is such an entity as a collective consciousness. > Remember, in the MOQ, social patterns are not a collection of > individuals. > > >Adrie: > > 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. > > Dan: > > Agree. > > > >Adrie: > > 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. > > Dan: > Yes. Only if they make sense. That is right. > > >Adrie: > > > > Sorry for my flaming up Dan, ..will make it up to you. > > Dan: > Don't worry about it, my friend. I know where you are coming from. > > Adrie: > > Thx for reading. > > Dan: > Always a pleasure! > > 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
