On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, Mark. Quality as Will makes sense to me. As does, Will as "the > ability to choose" or "freedom". Which I also equate with Quality. Thus > "Free Will" is a sort of redundancy, as I think Steve's arguments point out. > However, a rhetorical redundancy does not obviate the metaphysical > fundamentalness of freedom to will and being.
Steve: In this formulation I DON'T thinkit is redundant. If "will" is Quality then "free will" is Dynamic Quality. But this is of course a very different conception of the concept of free will. It is not some power to be excessed or not. It is not the thing deep within each soul to point to and declare "could have done otherwise" when someone errs. It is the groundstuff of reality. This concept is so different from the SOM concept of free will that it wold be better not to use that term to avoid confusion. Let's just call it DQ. Ron: Well, thats fine, but it is not so different as you might think. We are still discussing morality just the explanations for the same behaviour are expanded. We all want to do good. The will to good is the groundstuff of reality. The struggle then is in the context. Which wills to good are better than others? If intellectual goods are better than social goods then the concept of Dynamic Quality/free will is the most moral pattern of Quality. Some call it enlightenment, that perception is alterable, some caution that with this knowledge also comes the greatest of responsibilities. The responsibility of intent. What do you say to leaving the SOM brand of the discussion and pursuing the Moq brand. thnx 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
