Marsha,
That is not what dmb is asking for.  He wants to play wack his Pee-Pee
(can I say that on this forum?)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:26 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dmb,
>
> I have no desire to discuss free-will or determinism with you, and I have no 
> desire to play Whack-A-Mole.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2011, at 11:13 AM, david buchanan 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.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
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

Reply via email to