Hi Steve, Good, glad I misunderstood your point, we do then seem still to be reasonably closely aligned.
What I am missing then is what (substantive issue) you and dmb are actually disagreeing over (if anything). (Not that rhetorical style of argumentation is not a substantive issue - given our context.) (Something do to with the relation between DQ and free-will - clearly any definition which makes them the same thing can't help, though equally clearly in MoQish, there IS a relationship. I'd say the relationship was something to do with DQ providing the "opportunity" - the free-dom for the free-will to operate .... but I'm not looking to inject new thoughts at this point - just distinguish the current ones amidst all the crap.) PS that answer your question Marsha ;-) Ian On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Ian said: >> Steve, I side with DMB. >> I can't buy your a-determinism / a-free-willist stance. >> >> Free-will is not irrelevant to morals in the MoQ context. > > Steve: > That depends on what you mean by "free will." If you mean DQ, then > obviously it is very relevant. > > Ian: >> By taking the a-stance I believe you are just denying particular >> definitions of free-will and/or determinism. > > Steve: > Of course that's what I'm doing. I don't deny all _possible_ > definitions of _any_ term. That would be absurd. What am I denying is > the common usages--what pretty much everyone means by the terms. > > > > Ian: >> Sorry if I missed your underlying point, but it is getting hard to discern. >> I believed from earlier exchanges we were reasonably well aligned that >> free-will and determinism need not be in conflict, if one took an >> enlightened - balanced - MoQish view ? > > Steve: > I think you have missed my point. Let's start here: what do _you_ mean > by free will? Let's also acknowledge that Pirsig's statement that to > the extent we follow Dynamic Quality we are free is a mere tautology > like "survival of the fittest" amounting to saying "to the extent we > are controlled by static patterns of value we are controlled by static > patterns of value, and to the extent we are not controlled by static > patterns we are not controlled by static patterns." It doesn't tell us > anything about the power to choose freely in order to control our own > destiny and anything about _how_ free that power is if we even have > it. It doesn't answer any of the usual questions that people want to > know in looking for support for the notion of free will. Instead of > associating freedom with conscious willing in order to _take control_ > as in the usual sense of "free will," it associates freedom with > _letting go_. Instead of associating this freedom with a power of > conscious decision making, the MOQ version of freedom as DQ is > pre-intellectual and unselfconscious. My point is that that is pretty > much the _opposite_ of what is usually meant by free will. > > 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 > 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
