Hi Horse I think it's worse than that. I think that Marsha has an interesting point. Neither free wiil nor Determinism. Because: In every market research we can define a group of people that will probaly buy the actual item and another group that will probably NOT buy it. And there is always a third group that doesn't apply to the question. Therefore: Marsha is right AND David and others too. All qualifies into Quality. The next task is how to stick together.
Jan-Anders 29 jun 2011 kl. 21.06 Horse wrote: > Hi Steve, Dave and others > > The general impression I get with this debate about Free Will / > Determinism is the same impression that I get with the Selfishness / > Altruism debate. > It's somewhere between political and ideological. > That's to say that proponents of either side see the distinction as a > comparison of absolutes and somewhere along the line each side tries to > define the other side out of existence. > The position appears to be that there is only free will or there is only > determinism or, there is only selfishness or there is only altruism - > it's very rare to see a position which relates to the degree of one or > the other in a particular context. I remember being attracted to the MoQ > because, for the most part, it avoided absolutes in favour of context. > > Horse > > On 19/06/2011 23:57, Steven Peterson wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote: >>> So we're kind of back to the idea that 'Free Will' is an illusion! >> >> Sam Harris goes further to say that those who meditate learn that >> illusion of free will is itself an illusion: >> > > -- > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > ? Frank Zappa 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
