On Jul 20, 2011, at 6:00 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said to 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. > > dmb says: > Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm saying that the MOQ reformulates > the issue so that freedom and constraint are just about the MOST relevant > thing in the universe. I'm correcting the distortion which render it > irrelevant and meaningless, such as your's and Steve's.
Marsha: Three questions: Have you dropped the words 'free-will' and 'determinism'? If you are using new words please define them clearly? Please clearly explain the reformulation as you understand? If you are not using 'free-will' and 'determinism' as defined in the dictionary, than you must agree that I was correct to neither accept 'free-will' and 'determinism', nor reject 'free-will' and 'determinism'. They are irrelevant within the MoQ. Of course, you are about to explain the new words to use and new understanding. I look forward to your explanations. Marsha > I'm saying freedom and constraint go all the way down and I'm saying that > AGAINST your vacuous nihilism. > > Like Steve, you don't seem to understand that asserting a dependent self - as > opposed to an independent 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 that dependent self. That is the > self for whom freedom and control is anything but irrelevant. That's what > what the whole evolutionary battle is all about. > > To NEITHER reject NOR accept freewill doesn't even count as having a position > on the issue. It's just another classic example of meaningless equivocation. > > Your mantra is boring. Would it kill you to write a fresh sentence? > > > > >> 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
