18 jul 2011 kl. 13.31 Marsha wrote: > J-A, > > My post was addressed to dmb's complaint, and was dealing with MoQ issues. > > > Marsha >
Marsha Sorry about my interference but you make me curious. You're saying that your definition about the MoQ's self is a meaningless issue. Therefore you're neither accepting or denying free-will and determinism. So why then do you argue about it if it is a meaningless issue? Celebrity is a definitely a MOQ issue. It is the main issue of the social level described in Lila: "None of this celebrity has any meaning in a subject-object universe. But in a value-structured universe celebrity comes roaring to the front of reality as a huge fundamental parameter. It becomes an organizing force of the whole social level of evolution. Without this celebrity force, advanced complex human societies might be impossible. Even simple ones." RMP Lila. Simple ones like this forum. Celebrity is neither determined or absolutely free. It may be a matter of normal distribution or just plain luck. Celebrity may be the measure of the quality of the human free will. You got to work hard for celebrity. You got to have a strong will. And you got to do it right and in the right kitchen. I think you want to get something out of all your writing and argueing. But is it just will, a force without pattern, without direction? What is your objective? MU? Uncelebrity? You say sometimes that you are here for learning but what is then the difference between learning and teaching? I have a hard time to imagine that you are interested in learning something from dmb. If there were more questions and less assertions and less prestige I would believe so. I think there are an unlimited number of meaningful ways for romantic and classic people to meet and make out even in cyberspace. But just because the number is unlimited doesn't mean that they don't exist. What is the real taste of experiencing the difference? Jan-Anders > > 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 contr?butions 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
