Steve said to DmB:
Sorry, but as I have been trying to tell you, you are quite wrong
about what is meant by compatiblism as opposed to incompatiblism. You,
my friend, are clearly an INcompatiblist. That is to say that you hold
that in order to assert free will we must deny determinism--that free
will and determinism are incompatible.
Ron:
I know I should not be poking my nose into this but....REALLY?
Really Steve, all Daves post have been about nothing else but a compatabilist
stance against your persistant insistance that freewill is not a possibility in
a MoQ.
That choices and values are not free at all. Again and again he posts the same
Pirsig quotes about how freewill emerges out of static prefferences. How it is
the
Dynamic force of evolution and change.
He has matched you and/or defeated your position on every angle that you have
presented it. So much so that one has to begin to wonder if you are trying to
express
a point of view or just trying to get one up on Dave SOMEHOW because your
position
is really coming off as more desperate with each reply to his posts.
Sometimes knowing when to quit shows more intelligence than belabouring
a defeated position.
I think we all understand that you , have a problem with the term free will,
you can't
drop the s/o metaphysical baggage and it causes confusion in your conversations.
But making a blanket general appeal to drop the terms on the grounds that it is
confusing
to yourself is making a rather bold request of others who do not have this
problem and
see it as an expansion of a concept not an outright rejection of one.
Others here have a similar bout with the rejection of ideas, somehow it emotes
a certain
kind of superiority, it weilds a certain amount of emotional power to reject
common terms
based on metaphysical reasons but....IS that what we are after? IS this the
love of wisdom?
IS this a metaphysic of Quality?
James said it best, Some new ways at looking at old ideas. I will stress once
again how an expansion
of reason rejects nothing but a rigid static absolute point of view, It rejects
rejection based on
rigidly held conceptions.
And some of our posters hold some very rigid conceptions about "conventional"
terms. They
reject those terms on purely metaphysical reasons not Pragmatic ones.
It's the attitude that must be rejected freinds .. the dynamism lies in looking
at each static
composite with fresh eyes, to see the new in the old, to expand understanding.
And on this note, to Dan, perhaps the rejection of social quality and the
measuring of your
writing agaist the satisfaction it delivers to you has become a rigid static
pattern of "good"
for you and perhaps breaking those static patterns would be a real boon to your
writing.
Just a suggestion.
peace
..
..
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
