On Jul 17, 2011, at 8:15 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > 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.
Marsha: For me, the MoQ's self is a collection of ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in a field of Dynamic Quality. In this definition there is no independent, autonomous, Cartesian "self" to HAVE freedom of the will, and likewise, there is no independent, autonomous, Cartesian "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. ___ 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
