Steve said to dmb:
If you don't take that position then what have we been arguing about for the
past several months? No, what I said is nearly a direct quote of what you have
been saying for some time.
dmb says:
No, it's a direct quote of the Stanford encyclopedia and I never used the word
"rational" in describing my own reading of human agency in the MOQ. And we had
a series of exchanges in which I explained how rationality is NOT what makes
the agent free in the MOQ. And I was quoting Stanford to dispute a claim you
made about free will, a point you missed entirely, as usual.
And this is just one more example of why talking to you is so frustrating and
pointless. You just can't keep track of your own behavior. You can't remember
anything so that I have to say everything five times and you still forget. It's
ridiculous. In fact, the Stanford quote was intended to get you to understand
an objection I have been raised repeatedly for weeks and weeks, if not months.
About 7 weeks ago, for example, I was asking you these same questions.
On July 7th, dmb said to Steve:"Pirsig's statement is about the extent to which
one's behavior is controlled or free. How in the world do you figure that is
NOT about one's will or the freedom of one's will? He's talking about the
extent to which people are free or not within the terms of the MOQ. I think
you're bending over backwards to deny the obvious in several different ways and
this is certainly one of them. Like I said, the MOQ avoids this dilemma by
saying that our behavior is both free and controlled. The MOQ does not avoid
this dilemma by REJECTING both horns but rather by saying they are not mutually
exclusive options. The MOQ says freedom and restraint are both empirically
known and they're both real to various extents. ...Obviously the MOQ is not
framing freedom and restraint as a matter of subjectivity and objectivity but
in terms of static and Dynamic, which is the quality of order and the quality
of freedom respectively. And this is not some wishy-washy middle
ground on this particular dilemma but the MOQ's first and most central
distinction, as well as a description of what we are."
dmb now adds:
Don't you see how the MOQ reformulation fits with the MOQ's static-dynamic
distinction and with the MOQ description of what we are? In all cases, it is a
balance of freedom and order. We ARE a forest of static patterns with the
capacity to respond to DQ. This is what I've been saying all along and this
description of human agency does not depend on "rationality". But it is still
human agency and that is all I mean by free will, for the hundredth time.
When I was a kid we had a dog named Suzie. She used to chase her own tail.
Round and round she'd go.
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
