Hi dmb, . > Steve rep lied to dmb: > ...What the hell are you talking about? I just said (as I have been saying > all along) it is reasonable to think of the MOQ as supporting free will > "depending on how far you are willing to go in re-describing free will in > order to be able to lend MOQ support to it (i.e. as DQ/sq)." > > dmb says: > Again, no, that is exactly NOT what you have been saying all along and there > is no shortage of evidence for this in the record. I found some in the first > place I looked.... > > Horse said: So we're kind of back to the idea that 'Free Will' is an illusion! > > Steve responded: Yes, I have tried to make clear that the free > will/determinism debate depends entirely on premises that the MOQ denies. The > MOQ denies free will as well as determinism in favor of a continuum of > reliable to unpredictable preferences. Determinism is false in the MOQ > because determinism leaves no place for values. Free will is also false since > though everything is preference (or value), it is meaningless to assert that > preference is free. What could a person's preference be free of when all that > a person is is a set of preferences? This freedom to which the traditional > notion of free will refers is the freedom of an independent agent that the > MOQ calls a fiction. > > dmb resumes: > See, that is your often repeated claim and that's _defeated_ by Pirsig's LC > annotation.
Steve: Given that my claim has always been that what Pirsig means by "free will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term, you'll have to explain how exactly the LC quote defeats rather than supports my position. dmb: Here's another example where you make the claim quite neatly. Just a couple of weeks ago you said... > > Steve: For Pirsig, freedom is associated with following dynamic quality. His > hot stove analogy gives us one paradigmatic example of what it is like to > follow DQ which is in no way what anyone means by free will. Steve: Given that my claim has always been that what Pirsig means by "free will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term, you'll have to explain how exactly the LC quote defeats rather than supports my position. > dmb says: > Now you are claiming that you've always said, "that DESPITE the traditional > definition of freewill the MOQ can argue against it in favor of a different > view of free will"!?! Steve: Yes, that is what I am saying. dmb: Doesn't this PROVE that your pants are on fire? Like I said, I'd bet you said this three dozen times and there's no shortage of evidence as to what you're been saying all along. Why are you not embarrassed to make a claim that can so easily be exposed as a lie? Seriously, how can you be so shameless? I honestly don't get that. Steve: Given that my claim has always been that what Pirsig means by "free will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term, you'll have to explain how exactly the LC quote defeats my position. dmb: I honestly don't get that. Steve: Perhaps, then, there is much you need to learn. 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
