:-)
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > 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 ___ 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
