Hi dmb,
> Steve replied: > 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: > > It's hard to see how this point could be any simpler or clearer and so I'm > quite amazed that you think this needs to be further explained. > > You said, the MOQ's freedom is associated with following dynamic quality, > which is in no way what anyone means by free will. Pirsig says the MOQ can > argue that free will exists at all levels. You say that following DQ is not > what ANYONE means by free will but Pirsig is the most relevant someone and > that's IS what he means. Steve: I suppose it didn't occur to you, dmb, that I was being hyperbolic? I am sure that when I said that to Horse he understood that I didn't mean literally "anyone" since of course we already knew that at least some members of this forum and Pirsig himself accept the extent to which we follow DQ as free will. My point as always was that this is not what non-MOQers could be expected to take as "free will" and if we say that we have free will and what we mean is the extent to which we follow DQ, we will almost certainly be misunderstood and taken to be endorsing something Pirsig denies. It's fine for Pirsig to say so in the context of an entire book to qualify what free will as following DQ means, but to say "I believe in free will" when talking to people not familiar with Pirsig will take you to be saying something you don't mean. dmb: > Are we supposed to believe that exercising choice is in no way what anyone > means by free will? Steve: Explaining human choice is what everyone means by both free will AND determinism. The debate STARTS with the acknowledgement that we make choices all the time and then asks whether these choices are free or determined. dmb: No, of course not. That would be super stupid because that's exactly how "free will" is defined in the dictionary, as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." In short, Steve, your claim is at odds with everything. It defies proper use of terms, defies logic, philosophical encyclopedia, the primary texts, commentary from the author of the primary text, the general spirit of pragmatism, the spirit of radical empiricism and it's at odds with the overall thrust of the MOQ, especially its emphasis on freedom and morality. To put the same idea a different way, your claim is supported by nothing at all. > > It's as if you are afflicted with some kind of conceptual dyslexia wherein > everything is upside-down and backwards, wherein the obvious needs to be > explained, where opposites are equated and where questions are posed after > they've been answered five times already. I sincerely hope that you're only > pretending to be that stupid. Your claims are pure nonsense either way, but > if you sincerely believe this drivel then you have my sympathy, at least. If > you are being honest here, then I can only wonder how you manage to keep a > job or otherwise function in life. Steve: What do you mean by "proper use of terms"? 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
