J-A,
The issue was free-will and determinism. I have already stated them issues NOT worth discussing. And I am not interested in playing Whack-A-Mole with the you either. Marsha On Jul 18, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
