Hi Steve, I'm no expert, but I've been exposed to neither/nor logic, as a non-dualistic logic, through my reading of Buddhist philosophy. It seems to me it places the issue of freewill into the metaphor of horns of a rabbit. The abstract concept is dissolved and one is sent back to awareness/experience. In conversation I would state it just like I did in the sentence.
Marsha On Jun 26, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Steven Peterson wrote: > 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