dmb said to Steve:
...You're so lost that you don't even understand your own evidence. The man's
name is Doyle, not Boyle, and his lecture at Harvard is an explanation of the
the James essay you brought to the table. That is the essay where James
presents his two-stage model. Your denials only show how clueless you are about
your own words and deeds.
Steve replied:
...My point is that the Two Stage model is Boyle's suggestion for how James
ought to be understood. To my knowledge James never used the term "two stage
model" in that or any other essay. So, no, I did not bring any "two stage
model" into the conversation. YOU did that through Boyle.
dmb says:
The Stanford, Wikipedia and most other encyclopedia articles also describe
James's work in that essay as a two-stage model. It doesn't matter if you
called it by that name or not when you presented. Of course you didn't. That
would have required some comprehension on your part. There's no danger of that
happening anytime soon.
dmb said to Steve:
...The Seigfried quotes show that Jamesian free will is a practical and
empirical matter, that it doesn't depend on any metaphysical claim. Drop the
traditional metaphysical baggage, you keep you saying. And so I'm showing you
that there isn't any.
Steve replied:
...I can see that in Seigfired's analysis. ... So the Seigfried analysis seems
a better candidate for being relevant to Pirsig's notion of freedom. As for
your metaphysical baggage, it comes to light upon consideration of the
determinism side of the question. When you insist that determinism stands for
what is ultimately true ...
dmb says:
I do NOT insist that determinism stands for what is ultimately true. That's the
baggage you are adding. I only insist that the word "determinism" has a
specific meaning. The word refers to a philosophical position that can be held
for many different reasons but whatever those reasons are, regardless of
whether they are metaphysical or not, the determinist believes we are
determined. Period. Let me say that again, the Determinist believes we are
determined. That's all the word means. I have no doubt that many of the various
determinists have come to that conclusion for metaphysical reasons but those
particulars are not part of the definition of the word. Determinism is just the
view that we are determined. Honestly, Steve, how hard can that be?
Steve said:
Who is the "we" in this picture that exercises control or is controlled? That's
why the Two Stage model doesn't work for the MOQ. That is the important
question that my "Big Self/small self" formulation takes into account.
dmb says:
There you go again. Do "we" really have to deny the Cartesian self at the end
of every sentence? That's a bullshit objection and you know it. How many times
do I have to post the quote wherein Pirsig says it's both impossible and
unnecessary to give up words like "we" and "I". Every time you make this
objection, I think even less of you. It's stupid and dishonest.
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
