On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:28 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Steve: > If we ARE our values, It simply could not make sense to say we CHOOSE > our values anymore than it makes sense to say we are DETERMINED BY our > values. Where you see 2 mutually exclusive SOM based options, I see a > third option where if accepted denies that the other two even make > sense as questions. If we ARE our values, it just doesn't make any > sense to ask if we CHOOSE our values or are DETERMINED BY our values. > These are just non-questions from the MOQ perspective. > > Ron: > Oh, if we use prefference, rather than choice then you can chill. > we can have a discussion all day about PREFFERING our values > but as soon as we use the term choice it becomes meaningless.
Steve: Though I am glad to discuss and am quite "chill," I don't think that helps. "Preferring our values" is just to say we value our values, which is tautological. Ron: > I dunno...if we are framing the discussion, note, discussion..not > dilemma,, for the DILEMMA disapears.. in MoQ then the terms > we use should'nt make a difference, because in a MoQ frame > work their meaning is the same. Steve: I think this is what I was saying to dmb about the word "cause." The MOQ reinterprets causation (like it reinterprets everything) in terns of value. In the case of free will, Pirsig sees the underlying question as concerned with freedom which he has much to say about, but he drops the SOM notion of "the will." Ron: > seems like you are the only one hung up and haunted by the terms > and their former implications so much so, you cant even submit to the > idea that when we speak about the distinction of freewill and determinism > we are talking about the distinction between dynamic and static Quality > sans the either/or "Dilemma". Steve: No, I agree that Pirsig reformulates the old SOM debate in terms of static and dynamic quality. Ron: > Taking away the either/or Dilemma takes away certainy, absolute truth,, > ect..all those conepts you insist are still invoked with the usage of the > terms, > those terms do not change the context, context changes the usage. Steve: I think the MOQ also drops the notion that the freedom question is about causes internal to (subjective) or external to (objective) the will. 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
