Hi dmb, On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Steve: Instead of shifting to the "straw man" defense, why not just say that you now understand and agree with what I have been saying all along--that the MOQ denies both horns of the traditional free will/determinism debate by denying the fundamental premise upon which it rests? That would be the honest and honorable thing to do here. Best, Steve 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
