Hi dmb, > Steve said to dmb: > ..Anyway, are you suggesting here that Boyle's Two-Stage model for > understanding Jamesian free will, is what Pirsig means by freedom? ...It > [Doyle's lecture to the William James Society at Harvard] would perhaps have > helped you if the issue was that I didn't understand what Jamesian free will > was. But the issue for me is ....
> dmb says: > Dude, the issue is your understanding of Jamesian free will. You brought the > issue to the table when you starting quoting from James essay, "The Dilemma > of Determinism". Steve: As long as we agree that Boyle's Two-Stage model for understanding Jamesian free will is not the same as Pirsig's formulation of the issue of freedom. dmb: And it was Marsha who found the Youtube lectures, although I had earlier quoted Doyle in my efforts to explain how you were misreading James's essay. > > I honestly don't know what motivated you to bring James's two-stage model > into the debate (and Marsha's motives are even more mysterious to me) but if > anyone should be asking anyone how it's relevant to Pirsig's formulation, I > should be asking you. What was your point in bringing it? Steve: I didn't bring in any two-stage model. That was Boyle's idea that you brought in. I brought the James essay in to show you how ridiculous your "it's simple, Steve" claims have been where you continually chastised me for "improper use of terms." Clearly this is a complex issue, and clearly there is no simple agreed upon formulation for how the terms in question simply must be used. Your insistence that I was defying simple logic in not accepting your formulation of free will as being the mutually exclusive opposite of determinism turns out to be the majority view among philosophers today and, according to James's essay, in his time as well. Also, according to SEP, you have been using the term "compatiblism" to mean the exact opposite of what the encyclopedia says it means (you have been defending INcompatiblism while calling it "compatiblism"), so according to your own standards you are a "hack," "wildly incoherent," and making "improper use of terms." dmb: What is your purpose in ignoring the Jamesian analysis I offered? Steve: You keep saying that I ignored your long series of quotes which you presented without explanation of what you think they mean or how they relate to the discussion. I have no idea what you want me to say about them. The issue for me is that you are slipping the traditional notion of free will in the backdoor of the MOQ. Jamesian free will is not Pirsigian compatiblism which I think is best understood in terms of small self (determinism)/Big Self (freedom) rather than "first chance, then choice" or "first free, then will." Pirsig's notion of freedom is not a matter of the will of a free agent. While the model Boyle is peddling may be an interesting and helpful model for understanding James, I don't see this view anywhere in Pirsig's writing. Best, Steve 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
