J-A, My post was addressed to dmb's complaint, and was dealing with MoQ issues.
Marsha On Jul 18, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
