Steve said to Dan:
...The exact quote I was referencing is “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.” dmb takes this to mean that WE have "free will" to the extent we
follow DQ and are determined to the extent that WE are controlled by static
patterns. ... I do notice in RMPs reformulation of the issue the notion of "we"
as well as "the will" is conspicuously absent. dmb sees these notions as
implied. ...Instead of arguing whether or not Pirsig's statement is a middle
ground between free will and determinism [dmb] or better viewed as a rejection
of both horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma in favor of
a whole new reformulation of the question of freedom [steve], we might move
forward toward discussing Pirsig's reformulation itself. Pirsig says, “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.” So our behavior is free to some extent
and not free to some extent.
dmb says:
As far as I can tell, you're the only one who is NOT talking about Pirsig's
reformulation. You keep pretending that I'm not talking about freedom and
constraint within the terms of Pirsig's reformulation no matter how many times
I tell you otherwise. My claims have nothing to do with the claims of the straw
man you've invented. As a result, you are arguing with nobody about nothing.
One can only wonder why, I suppose, but I'd guess that it's a desperation move
aimed at avoiding the actual claims.
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
