dmb: > Isn't it just an objective scientific fact that you are responsible for this > paralysis? Your insistence that we ought to drop the basic terms (because > they are superglued to SOM baggage) has caused this paralysis and created all > kinds of confusion.
Steve: I haven't insisted anything of the kind. I have made a _recommendation_ that we (and Pirsig) ought not assert that the MOQ supports the notion of free will since it has such strong SOM associations. I think the consequence of the MOQ is a big fat "mu" to the traditional formulation of the free will/determinism debate, and I think we have come to agree on that much. The source of the "paralysis" is obviously your inattentiveness to what people mean by the words they use. (See your post to Matt K on the ideal reader and think about whether you measure up.). You simply insist that everyone use words in the ways that make the most sense to you rather than try to make sense of what others are saying on their own terms. (You were willing to do this for James, so perhaps there is hope for you.) For example, for months you insisted that I was a lunatic for saying that moral responsibility or free will is responsibility is compatible with determinism and not using standard definitions (even though, as SEP says, "It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it.") Meanwhile you have been calling yourself a compatiblist. But the SEP says, "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. [the precise idea that you have been calling me all sorts of insulting names or taking] Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." You have been simultaneously affirming compatibilism and criticizing me for defending compatiblism. It's an "objective scientific fact" that you'd have to be a dick not to take ownership of any of the confusion in this conversation. dmb: And you insist on this even though Pirsig explicitly says that the MOQ can reject the "traditional" meaning of "free will" and still argue FOR it and even though SEP says one ought not insist on any particular meaning either. Your insistence has persisted against way too much for way too long. It just isn't right, Steve. Steve: Again, I've done nothing of the sort. I accepted that Pirsig means "the extent to which one follows DQ" as his definition of free will. Now, how does one argue FOR or AGAINST "the extent to which one follows DQ"? You either accept that this is what Pirsig means when he says "free will" or you do not, and we both accept that that is what he means. dmb: I think anyone can plainly see why I'm frustrated. Why can't you see that? Why can't you see WHAT I'm saying here about basic concepts and dictionaries? Wouldn't YOU like to get past the starting point? Steve: Of course I would. Let's start by trying to get agreement on the SEP definition of what compatibilism is. First of all, please acknowledge that what you have been defending while calling yourself a compatiblist is on the contrary what SEP calls incompatiblism: "For ease of reference and discussion throughout this entry, let us simplify the above argument as follows: 1. If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise 2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does. 3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will. Call this simplified argument the Classical Incompatibilist Argument." 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
