On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > One minute, Marsha says: > > 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. > > The next minute Marsha says: > 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. > > dmb asks: > So, which is it. Does the MOQ say there is no self or not? And if the MOQ > does say a self exists, why is freedom and morality meaningless? > > Steve applauds Marsha's back-tracking contradictions: > 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." > > dmb says: > As Marsha just construed it, the MOQ's self is a collection of static > patterns in a field of DQ and as you have just construed it, freedom is > associated with DQ rather than "the will", and by "will" I guess you mean the > will of a Cartesian subject. > > But why is Marsha's static self IN A FIELD of DQ? Isn't it true that DQ is > not external to the MOQ's self? And since we are talking about the relative > freedom and constraint of the MOQ's self, why do you insist that the MOQ's > self can have a "will"? What sense can we make of the MOQ's "betterness" > without some kind of will? > > Seems like it doesn't matter how many times I try to explain this but the > problem with your position isn't really metaphysical or philosophical. It's > just logically bogus, sometimes even to the extent of maintaining opposite > positions.
Steve: I previously asked what could be meant by "the will" in the MOQ, and all you've said is that the MOQ depends on there existing some kind of will and therefore to deny it is "logically bogus." You are just dodging the question and slipping of the Cartesian Self in the back door of the MOQ if only because you can't see how else to think of morality. But in the MOQ, "the will" is an SOM term that drops out once you think of a person as a forest of patterns of value with the capability to respond to DQ. If a person IS her values, then we don't have to insert this extra added ingredient to explain choices since choices are simply a manifestation of one's values. Talk of "willpower" or "strength of will" is talk about the suffering (the negative quality) associated with being a forest of sometimes conflicting value patterns. Again, if you withhold the narcissistic judgment that what you can't make sense of is simply incomprehensible, you might have a chance of understanding what others are saying to you. 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
