On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:29 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha (repeatedly) asked dmb four questions and in reply to the answers said > only: > > It seems to you, dmb, quite meaningless to neither accept nor reject both > sides. > > > dmb says: > So, it would probably be safe to assume that getting answers was not really > the purpose of your questions.
Marsha: Assume away. I was interested in your explanation of the MoQ's reformulation of the free-will vs. determinism dilemma. I neither accept 'free-will' and 'determinism', nor reject 'free-will' and 'determinism'. Should your explanation have changed my mind? Steve and Dan have presented the RMP quote "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." (LILA, Chapter 12) - Debating beyond this seems unnecessary to me. I don't understand RMP's statement representing the classic 'free-will vs. determinism' problem. So I neither accept free-will &. determinism, or reject free-will & determinism. Conventionally, consider this my choice. Conventionally, I do not find either static pattern worth following. > dmb: > That's classic Marsha behavior, isn't it? That's how you got to be called > Lucy and that was you pulling away the football once again. This is what you > do. Ask and ask and ask and when the answer comes, you find some silly way to > dump on it or dismiss it. Here, for example, all you did was repeat one of my > assertions. Why bother to respond at all? What's the point in posting such a > little nothing? Marsha: I wished to hear your explanation of the MoQ's reformulation of the free-will vs. determinism dilemma. > dmb: > Yes, Marsha, as I said, your equivocal position seems quite meaningless, nor > do I see how you could come to that conclusion. Marsha: Okay. And I do not understand why you think it is meaningful from a MoQ point-of-view. > dmb: > See, at this point a person would normally counter that assertion by trying > to explain how they came to the conclusion and in what sense such a position > could have any meaning. That is widely known as a "conversation" or > "dialogue". Apparently, you've never heard of such a thing. Marsha: You do not set the standards for what is or isn't considered conversation or dialogue except in your own "head". I've never considered you to have any such expertise. Quite the contrary. > dmb: > Which raises the question; what are you doing here anyway? You're obviously > not interested in having any real discussion and you're always playing some > other game. Get a hobby or something, will you? Go away and get happy > somewhere else. Marsha: I am here because I care to explore the MoQ. ___ 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
