The MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous fiction and replaces that
concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the self as a complex ecology of
static patterns. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's self is the
solution to that problem.
Marsha said:
In the MoQ, there is no subject and there are no objects. If there is no
subject - if there is no self - then there is no subject/self to have freedom
of the will, and likewise, there is no subject/self who has a life that is
determined. The issue is meaningless. So, I neither accept free-wlll and
determinism, nor deny free-wlll and determinism.
dmb says:
I see your reasoning. The MOQ rejects SOM, so there is no subject, so there is
no self to be either free or determined. I understand how you get to your
conclusion. But it's wrong. You've made a very crucial mistake. You've equated
the rejection of the subjective self with the rejection of self. If that were
true, Pirsig wouldn't be able to reformulate the issue the way he did.
Pirsig said, "To the extent that ONE'S behavior is controlled by static
patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that ONE follows
Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, ONE'S behavior is free."
If the MOQ says there is no self, then what is Pirsig referring to in these
sentences? Who is the "one" controlled by static patterns? Who is the "one"
following Dynamic Quality? In what sense is the freedom of this "one"
meaningless? In what sense is the extent of freedom and restraint of this "one"
meaningless? Like I said, the MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous
fiction and replaces that SOM concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the
self as a complex ecology of static patterns with the capacity to respond to
DQ. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's self is the solution to
that problem.
Your position, that there is no self at all, is absolutely ridiculous. How
would that work? I've heard of low self esteem before, but that really takes
the cake. If your position is that there is no self, then who is making this
denial? Did your sentences type themselves? Who wrote Zen and the Art, if not
some kind of "self"? Who are you arguing with, if not an actual person? Your
position is not just unsound, it's absurd.
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
