Steve said to dmb:
The problem with this definition is that the MOQ agrees that "our actions are
not REALLY chosen by us" since "us" doesn't have any REAL metaphysical status.
Lila doesn't REALLY have the patterns, the patterns have Lila.
dmb says:
No, the only problem is the one you are adding. You are drawing conclusions
about hidden metaphysical assumptions on what basis? You honestly think it's
reasonable to conclude that much based on the fact that I used the pronoun
"us"?
There's no problem with the definition. The problem is that you're an asshole.
"There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the patterns. This
fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind', 'people', 'the public' and even
such pronouns as 'I', 'he', and 'they'. Our language is so organized around
them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of them.
There is really no need to. Like 'substance' they can be used as long as it is
remembered that they are terms for collections of patterns and not some
independent primary reality of their own". (LILA, p158)
"What does determinism profess? It professes that those parts of the universe
already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts shall be.
The future has no ambiguous possibilities bidden in its womb; the part we call
the present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement
than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every
part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in
which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning." (James)
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
