Hi SteveP, Yes, you are correct if your premises are as such. However, I believe you may be confused. Let me explain:
First of all, Dynamic Quality is Will. There is nothing about static quality that is composed of will. Secondly, Quality is the overarching term and as such would include both determined will and free will. Finally it is Freedom which provides us the power to choose, not the other way around. Let me explain by analogy. One day we are out in the jungle looking for elephant traps. We know that there must be some since the elephants seem to be disappearing. In addition, the local tribal chiefs are acquiring a lot of purple colored beads from the Belgian side of the Market. Now we really do not know where to look since we are just city bumpkins who got some elaborate grant from the WWF (no not the fake wrestling) to investigate as best we can. Now, Sherlock we are not. So, we have two choices. The first one is to wander aimlessly and take the chance of being eaten by a Bengal tiger. (Yes, we are in india, and the elephants are of the small eared variety. I realize you must register a complaint since the Belgians were mainly in the Congalese part of the dark continent. However, it is well known that the Belgian trade extended into the subcontinent since the British had tea, and the Belgians had waffles the shapes of elephant tusks, but I digress). Where was I?, oh yes, the other choice is to plan where we are going to look and make a grid map so that we do not cover the same tiger ground twice. Now, you don't have to be Roosevelt to know that this is the best choice. So, choice One has been made. However this does not prove that it is Free, or that it comes from our Will. And so we must face another choice before being half certain that our Wit is more than such and is indeed Will. So, having laid the plan, we have to choose who is going to be the poor bugger who gets to go into the Tiger's Lair. Now, I am not talking about the Black Sambo kind of tiger that turns into butter, I am talking about that big, big Tiger that traveled on a boat with Pi. Don't ask me how it got back to India, but as we know, Pi describes a circle. So, we have the chooser, and the chosen, both of which can be the same person since you are never alone with a schizophrenic poodle. Therefore we must toss a coin, and we may say "but, that is Chance, where is the Free-will?". Well as we saw with the women's world-cup final, the American's won the toss. However, they also chose to kick first (and missed of course). So, it is possible that the winner of the toss will choose to go into the Tiger's lair (to impress the Girls no doubt. King Kong is one thing, but there is nothing meaner than a Tiger who is hungry for pancakes.) So, if one wins, he/she/it (as in the big KK) has the FREEDOM of WILL to choose to do battle with that presumptive Tiger (which nobody has ever seen, by the way, the tracks look more like those of a Wildebeast who got lost and somehow ended up in India via the Tiger's boat as a stowaway. No annal plugs need for that short of a trip.) Outcome is yet to be determined (or is it freely determined?) So, I ask you SteveP, how is it that you can say that Will and Quality are the same thing? If you say GoodWill, and (Tiger) hunting, then we are talking about some kids in a Frat School, but otherwise I respectfully disagree with you. There is no SOM component of DQ so that is not a point of contention, and I am not confused by that postulate of yours. You can call it anything you want, but I do not think your choice of words is appropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my chorus on this one. Cheers, Mark On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree, Mark. Quality as Will makes sense to me. As does, Will as "the >> ability to choose" or "freedom". Which I also equate with Quality. Thus >> "Free Will" is a sort of redundancy, as I think Steve's arguments point out. >> However, a rhetorical redundancy does not obviate the metaphysical >> fundamentalness of freedom to will and being. > > In this formulation I DON'T thinkit is redundant. If "will" is Quality > then "free will" is Dynamic Quality. But this is of course a very > different conception of the concept of free will. It is not some power > to be excessed or not. It is not the thing deep within each soul to > point to and declare "could have done otherwise" when someone errs. It > is the groundstuff of reality. This concept is so different from the > SOM concept of free will that it wold be better not to use that term > to avoid confusion. Let's just call it DQ. > 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
