I agree with Ian, here. Obviously. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
> Marsha, (and Steve, for example) > > Steve said > "It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE > nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no > sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values." > > Ian resonded: > > It is NOT nonsense to say values choose values, or values determine > values - it IS reality. It is only nonsense to SOMist dreams of > (discrete, well defined) objectivity, that shun (apparent) logical > loops. Some level shifting is required. > > We cannot solve our problems with the same kind of argumentation that > created them. > With apologies to Einstein. > > John chimes in: The quote I supplied a bit back, I'd hoped would be understood, and the question would be settled: " What are facts? Poincaré proceeded to examine these critically. Which facts are you going to observe? he asked. There is an infinity of them." But in retrospect, perhaps I didn't explain the relevance of this quote quite aptly enough. I'd hate to have Marsha mad at me for merely quoting without explaining! And so perhaps a bit more is in order. In response to Steve and his assertion that we can't choose our preferences when we ARE our preferences, my hats off for coming up with a seemingly elegant conundrum. But I still, while bowing in his general direction, I completely disagree. Since we ARE our preference, then preference is more fundamental than self-dom and imho, that makes IT the methaphysical fundament. If you mean by "freedom", completely independent of all factors, then For there are an infinity of factors which cause our behavior, and make the idea of complete "freedom" a ludicrous idea. But the question remains, on which particular factor are you going to choose your ultimate ending? Where are you gonna analyze? How deep and to what extent? The whole question of what you are going to determine as the cause of your actions, is an open-ended question. "Which facts" can also be translated as "which factors". Thus the question of what makes us do what we do, and whether we are free or not, an infinitely open-ended question, according to Poincare, anyway. And me. And Pirsig. and I think dmb might chime in as well... But the point I want to bring to the discussion in particular, is that this open-ended question, is in essence, Quality itself. For is not the caring about Caring, itself enough "caring" to merit the badge? I say so. Each stop on the path to caring, is enough caring about the ultimate destination, to encompass the whole of it. I think Robert M. Pirsig might have not completely grasped this, but I'm sure from what he reports, that Phaedrus DID, and I think in the end he had enough to faith in Phaedrus's insight, to go along with this conclusion. Caring about questions of free will, indicate enough free will to satisfy the question of whether it is real. And thus we' ve solved the problem. Beyond that, why go there? It doesn't really exist, as a "problem" except in the context of a materialisitic (SOM) worldview and thus it's really not an "issue". What it is, in fact, is the ground of all being. The metaphysical fundament. That's what caring, is, in fact, the freedom to choose from alternatives. And if there is no such freedom, there is no choice. And if there is no choice, then there is no Quality. The MoQ depends utterly upon it. As do I! > Ian > PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding? > 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 > 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
