Hi Steve, On Jul 18, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
> Hi Marsha, > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> 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." > Marsha: Sure. I think the movement towards freedom, or DQ, is assisted with the practices of meditation and mindfulness/awareness; it then is experience rather than merely an intellectual static pattern of value. But I believe you've made a similar statement. ___ 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
