Dmb,
Now you seem to understand why I've stated that I neither accept free-will, nor deny free-will. It's irrelevant within the MoQ. Marsha On Jul 20, 2011, at 5:14 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Steve asked dmb: > Maybe you can answer this as our master of logic. How can you still think it > is an interesting question to wonder about whether a DEPENDENT self has > INDEPENDENT (free) will? > > dmb says: > How can I think it's interesting to ask about the DEPENDENT self's > INDEPENDENT (free) will? > Well, I don't think that is an interesting question at all. I think the > question is absurd. The question confuses and combines two completely > different conceptions of the self. In the MOQ, everything exists in relation > to everything else and, in that sense, there is no such thing as > independence. But you don't seem to understand that asserting a dependent > self is not at all the same as saying there is no self at all. In Pirsig's > formulation, the "one" who is free to some extent and the "one" controlled to > some extent is not independent. > > Steve said: > You accuse me of changing the subject, but my point all along has been that > the free will determinism debate is an SOM problem which as Pirsig says, > doesn't come up in the MOQ. ...If there is no independent (free) self, then > in the SOM sense of the term (and "free will" is an SOM term) the MOQ denies > the "free will" horn of the ancient dilemma. If reality is Quality, the MOQ > denies the determinism horn of the dilemma as well. What we have here is not > some middle ground that says we have a little free will and are also a little > bit determined by forces external to the will (since the MOQ doesn't play > that internal/external subject-object game). Instead the MOQ denies the SOM > premise (the independent self in a world of objects) upon which it could > possibly make sense to ask the free will/determinism question. That doesn't > mean we can't talk about freedom, but in the MOQ we aren't talking about > "free will" since there is no independent self who could possess this faculty. > > dmb says: > Yes, so you keep saying. You keep insisting that "free will" is superglued to > SOM and the independent self. That is just an arbitrary rule that you made up > and that's exactly why you keep re-inserting the Cartesian self into my > sentences, even the ones in which I reject the Cartesian self. That arbitrary > rule of yours is, in effect, a straw man factory. You're cranking them out by > the dozen. You are objecting to claims that nobody made. You're asking me to > defend the ridiculous nonsense produced by YOU at YOUR straw man factory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
