Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ham: >> Subject to these conditions, why should the issue of moral values even >> arise, let alone be endlessly debated in a philosophy forum? > > Dan: > > Well, Ham, it certainly has opened up a hornets' nest. I am a bit > frustrated myself that some of us have such trouble seeing what it is > that the MOQ is saying about free will vs. determinism. I am guessing > that a person outside the framework of the MOQ (so to speak) cannot > form a proper understanding with the notion of Dynamic freedom/static > determinism, thus I thought perhaps it might be fruitful to answer > your post as best I can. John has grown increasingly belligerent and > Ron clearly supports John's notions that static quality choices are > available to us all. Thankfully, Marsha and Joe seem to get what I am > saying. > > Ron: > Dan I understand RMP's quote within it's context, in regard to the > intellectual > debate involving freewill and determinism. > But if we go back to the initial disagreement: > > "Hello Dan, you had stated to John >>>Dan: >>> I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom. >>> Conventionally, that is so. But we are not talking conventionally >>> here. We are using the framework of the MOQ. To have a choice is >>> follow intellectual patterns of value and when we are dealing with >>> static quality, we are without choice." > > Ron: > But then you change the context to the application of the framework of the > MoQ and you state that within that framework static patterns do not exercise > choice.
Dan: That is not exactly right... I said as long as we follow static quality patterns, we are without choice. For the record, I think the MOQ would say that static quality patterns exercise preferences for preconditions, not that they choose to do so, however. Ron: In fact you follow this statement clarifying this point of view with: > > Dan: >> We may think we are making a choice but within the >> framework of the MOQ, that is an illusion. > > Ron: > You then led me to the understanding that where MoQ points to is > Dynamic Quality which you also link with the idea of "freedom from choice". > > And you claimed that these are not your own contentions that they are indeed > THE MoQ's. Dan: Need I quote LILA again? "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." [LILA} Dan comments: There it is, in black print. I've offered this quote at least a half dozen times now. It is straight from LILA. Look it up yourself if you doubt me. It is in every copy of LILA that I own. I am not making it up, nor am I making any claims. Clearly, you disagree the MOQ. I don't see any reason to slander me about it though by saying I am claiming something and then insinuating that it isn't so. >Ron: > I draw from this: > > 1. Choice is an illusion > > 2. Dynamic Quality is freedom from the illusion of choice. > > 3. Dynamic Quality is best understood as "not this, not that" Dan: Again, as long as we follow static quality patterns, we are without choice. Whether choice is an illusion or not is up to you, I suppose. I don't see any illusion myself. As much as we follow Dynamic Quality, we are free. And yes, it seems best to say that Dynamic Quality is not this, not that, to keep it concept-free. Otherwise, "it" becomes just another intellectual quality pattern (which it is, of course). >Ron: > The counter arguement I make > > 1: Choice is reality, every last bit Dan: This is why I said you are in agreement with John. Here, you seem to be equating Quality as being synonymous with choice. I see nothing in the MOQ to substantiate such a notion. If you do, please point out the quotes. >Ron: > 2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work Dan: Natural selection is at work on the biological level, yes. >Ron: > 3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" Dan: "Betterness" and "not this, not that" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are both pointing at Dynamic Quality. >Ron: > Making it a conflict of meaning between the ideas freedom from choice > and freedom is choice. Dan: We cannot say what is better except as an afterthought. So how is one to choose what is better? >Ron: > I think that the consequences of each makes enough of a difference > that a dialog concerning it directly influences the meaning and intent > of any "THE MoQ." Dan: So you believe there are many MOQs? >Ron: > I thought we were having some rather good discussions concerning it. Dan: We were. But then you seemed to go off on a tangent with Marsha. And, like Ham, I guess I am a bit frustrated... that's all. Thank you, 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
