Hi Marsha, On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > > 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. > >
Steve: Exactly. Well said. And we can add that this does NOT render talk of freedom meaningless. Pirsig obviously had a lot to say on the subject. In the MOQ, freedom is associated with DQ rather than with "the will." Best, Steve 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
