Hi dmb,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dmb said:
> ... 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 distortions which render it irrelevant and meaningless, such
> as Steve's. I'm saying freedom and constraint go all the way down ....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.
>
>
> Steve replied:
> ...I've been consistent with my position since my original entry back in
> April: "...The MOQ does not posit an extra-added ingredient above and beyond
> the patterns of value and the possibility for patterns to change that are
> collectively referred to as "I" about which it could possibly make any sense
> to ask, "do I have free will?" This question gets dissolved in the MOQ to the
> extent that it needs to be unasked. ... We can identify with our current
> patterns of preferences and the extent to which we do so we are not free. We
> are a slave to our preferences. Rather we ARE our preferences. ...
>
> dmb says:
> Right, this is the position I'm complaining about. I think you're way off the
> mark and the fact that you've pressed it consistently since April only makes
> matters worse. Your "defense" would only lead me to expand the charges
> against you from assault to aggravated assault. It's true that the MOQ does
> not posit an independent self above and beyond DQ and sq. We agree on that
> much but then you make the crucial mistake that I'm complaining about.
> Because the independent Cartesian self has been rejected, you say, questions
> about freedom and constraint couldn't possibly make sense and we have to
> unask those questions.
Steve:
You are bending over backwards to disagree with me. I most certainly
did NOT say that questions about freedom and constraint don't make
sense in the MOQ. In fact, you've made this false accusation of me
about 20 times now and each time I've corrected you on this point.
Above you have me quoted as saying that the traditional formulation of
the question of freedom in term of free will versus determinism
doesn't make sense in the MOQ. The MOQ rejects the premise upon which
that debate rests. It reformulates the question in terns of sq and DQ
rather than in terms of the will of an free subject.
dmb:
That's the move that renders freedom and constraint irrelevant and
meaningless. That's the move that leads you to such nihilistic
conclusions. I'm saying that these questions could not be more
relevant or more meaningful. You're saying the very opposite BECAUSE
you don't seem to understand that the MOQ's dependent self is the
"one" (the person, the individual) who is free to some extent and
controlled to some extent in Pirsig's reformulation. Like I said, that
is the self for whom freedom and control is anything but irrelevant.
That's what what the whole evolutionary battle is all about.
Steve:
This is such B.S. You have just snipped out from the above quote that
you are responding to where I said back in April, "Instead, in MOQ
terms we can
reformulate the question where "I" could refer to the static patterns
(small self in Zen terms) or the "I" could refer to the capacity for
change, emptiness, the nothingness that is left when we subtract all
the static patterns that is also the generator and sustainer and
destroyer of those patterns (big Self in Zen terms). That's what
Pirsig did with the question. We can identify with our current
patterns of preferences and the extent to which we do so we are not
free. We are a slave to our preferences. Rather we ARE our
preferences. Or we can identify with the capacity to generate,
sustain, or destroy existing patterns in favor of (we hope) new and
better ones. To the extent we do we are free."
And then, as if you were teaching me a lesson, you quote this to me
"In Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small" self. Small self
is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." Now isn't that exactly
what I just said???
> Steve replied:
> That is utter nonsense. How could a "dependent self" be free (independent)?
> That is a simple logical contradiction.
> dmb says:
> Oh, I see. You're equating "free" and "independent". That conflates two
> different senses of the word "independent". In that case, it's no wonder
> you're confused. By extension, I suppose you are also equating "dependence"
> with unfreedom or with being controlled like a slave. If I were using the
> terms that way, my claim would be nonsense. But I'm not using them that way.
Steve:
"Dependent self" means that it depends on something. It doesn't mean
"controlled like a slave," but it does mean "not free," i.e., not DQ.
The dependent self ("small self" is Pirsig's term) DEPENDS on
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns. Small self
does not contain these patterns. These patterns contain small self
This small self is therefore not free. Big self is DQ and is free.
That fits perfectly with Pirsig's reformulation of free will inits
"the extent to which" form.
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
