Hi dmb, On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > It didn't escape my notice that you still haven't responded to this even > though I've pointed out this oversight a couple times already... > >> "Look, you have to deal with the fact that if you want to equate free >> will with the capacity to follow DQ, you have to reconcile some things >> that Pirsig has said about following DQ with what is meant by the word >> "will." Pirsig said that to the extent we follow DQ our behavior is >> free which you take to be a sort of free will. But if we want to know >> what Pirsig means by "follow DQ" in order to see if that equation >> makes any sense we have to consider some of the paradigmatic examples >> he offered for following DQ such as jumping off a hot stove and an >> amoeba moving away from acid. It is just absurd to talk about these >> things as any sort of will let alone _free_ will." > > > > dmb says: > But I have responded to this objection several times already, like > yesterday's explanation for example.
Steve: I guess I didn't see (and still don't see) the quoted explanation as hang to do with what I'm saying. For example, you state by saying,"If the extent to which we are controlled by static patterns is 100% and following DQ does not entail making choices, then no one is responsible for any of their actions. How could you square this conclusion with the fact that Pirsig has reconstructed all of static reality as a moral hierarchy?" But I never said that we are 100% controlled by static patterns. That doesn't have anything to do with anything I've ever said let alone the argument I wanted youth respond to above which involve squaring the usage of the term "will" and the descriptions of DQ that Pirsig offered. 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
