> dmb says: > Steve keeps saying since Lila just is her values and there is no added > metaphysical entity beyond that. This is true enough as far as it goes, but > this doesn't mean that selves have no existence at all. Steve and I and > everyone else exist DEPENDENTLY within this larger evolutionary framework.
Steve: To assert that the self "exists DEPENDENTLY" is to deny the free will horn of the traditional free will versus determinism dilemma since the whole big deal there was always about whether or not an INDEPENDENT self can assert itself, i.e. exercise it's free will. Obviously a value-based metaphysics also denies the determinism horn of the traditional SOM dilemma as well. That's why I've said all along that the MOQ denies both horns of the traditional SOM free will determinism dilemma. In the MOQ freedom is not an issue of asserting the autonomy of an independent agent, and therefore the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma is dropped out of the picture. "In the MOQ, this dilemma doesn't come up." Instead, in the MOQ the issue of freedom is about static versus dynamic Quality. To the extent we follow static patterns we are not free, to the extent we are acting in response to DQ, we are free. But to exactly what extent IS that? What is interesting to me is that what we seem to have here is a whole new MOQ Platypus after the SOM Platypi have been dissolved. Because Pirsig says we cannot distinguish degeneracy from DQ until long after the fact we just can't say to what extent we are free. 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
