On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > > > How about neither accepting free will, nor rejecting freewill. > > Marsha
Hi Marsha, I think that is somewhat what Pirsig does in Lila. He raises the issue of free will but doesn't accept either horn of the dilemma as traditionally posed. But isn't that the same as denying both horns? I'm wondering how one does what you say in conversation. Most people would probably say that if you don't accept it you reject it. But if the question is one of those "do you still beat your wife?" kind of questions, you can't answer it directly. You either need to back up and reconstruct the problem on different terms or change the subject. I think Pirsig kind of does both. He resolves the issue by talking about freedom instead of free will since he doesn't want to accept the metaphysical premise of an independent agent that could be the possessor of this free will. Best, Steve 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