Hi Steve The split between DQ and SQ is like a hole in the fence showing us how it "could have been".
Any storys interest is based on how the actors in it could have been acting differently. A play where people are acting and doing as supposed is just boring. The Quality of a story is built on what the audience is imaging as the alternative choice, how the actor should do instead, to fix the logic hole in the actual scene. Some people here at this forum are trying to play the role of the hole here by presenting undefinable mazes. I think that is a fundamental mistake because the real Value (interest) for the dialogue in any assertion lies in what is not asserted. Imagine for example if Henry should show up a bucket with no hole in this song: (it would have been better if her name was Lila, but as usual it's not perfect). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfCQ-t7xY0 Jan-Anders Steve: > Hi all, > >> dmb says: >> I just don't understand how your mind works. It's simple, Steve. Free will >> is just another way to say that you could have acted differently. Free will >> is, as my dictionary puts it, "the ability to act one's own discretion". As >> I have already said many times, that is all I mean by free will. Every >> dictionary and encyclopedia backs this claim and I don't see any reason why >> the MOQ would defy the english language. Unlike yourself. > > Steve: > I agree with dmb that free will traditionally defined is a "just > another way to say that you could have acted differently," but I think > dmb is asserting a conception of free will when he says that "could > have acted differently" is the same as Pirsig's formulation of freedom > as the extent to which we follow DQ. He is trying to slip the old > "free will" in the back door of the MOQ, but I could be wrong. I see > "could have acted differently" and following DQ as very different > ideas. One is Pirsig's description of freedom. The other is free will > as it is usually defined. dmb thinks these concepts cash out to the > same thing, but I don't see how that works. > > What I think would help me most would be to understand what the past > conditional "could" refers to in this context. "Could" if only _what_ > were true? I've asked a couple times, but for some reason, dmb doesn't > think "could have acted differently" needs any explication. For me > there is a clear dependence on some conditional, some "if only," > inherent in the word "could." I just can't make sense of "could have > acted differently" without a "could if _what_ were true?" > > 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
