18 jul 2011 kl. 10.55 Marsha wrote: > n 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.
So why does Marsha argue at all? Anonymous internetforums are providing space for any one to be read. To be heard and read and thus given confirmation for the existence of oneself is one of the main reasons why we can se a lot of odd personalities on the net. To be heard at all is important as it confirms your very being in a society. But to have the right and space to speak doesn't automatically lead to celebrity. Celebrity is gained for valuable contributions to the society. One can have a lot of energy to talk but if the energy dont have a right pattern that is useful for the listeners then the sum value of the talk is low. This forum is just like the most forums I follow. There is always at least one person in there that stands for the buffoonery. He writes just to be heard but can't contribute with something useful. He can always play the destructive role that does not have to be responsible about anything because all he writes is about something else than his own. Marshas nihilism is elegant as she is denying even her denial. Social celebrity doesn't come just before one are heard and known. Celebrity is based on useful contributions that bring Betterness to the society. Good contríbutions are constructive because they have understandable logic and contains useful solutions on real practical applications. Therefore I think one should ask himself before clicking the send button: Does this message have Quality? i e Is it short or long enough? Does it have the right logic and construction? Does it fit the thread and forum? You can only guess. The answer is coming from the readers. If you get celebrity then it had Quality. If you dont get the answer you wanted, what could be changed to make it better? Sincerely basic Jan-Anders 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
