Hi dmb, > dmb says: > I do NOT insist that determinism stands for what is ultimately > true...Determinism is just the view that we are determined. Honestly, Steve, > how hard can that be?
Steve: Great. That's a much better definition from what you gave earlier from the dictionary. Finally, no metaphysical baggage about what is ultimately true! Now that we agree that that is all we want to make of determinism, then the MOQ is a compatiblism in the traditional sense of supporting BOTH free will AND determinism (in contrast to the INcompatiblism you have been "improperly" calling compatiblism). Clearly Pirsig takes the view that we as "small self" are determined. And clearly Pirsig takes the view that we as Big Self are free since Big Self is Dynamic Quality, the quality of freedom. Lila's battle is everyone's battle. Like her, you are a cohesion of changing static patterns of Quality. There isn't any more to you (small self) than that. The words you use, the thoughts you think, the values you hold, are the end product of three and a half billion years of the history of the entire world. You (as small self) are a kind of jungle of evolutionary patterns of value. You don't know how they all got there any more than any jungle knows how it came to be. It isn't you that has quality; it's Quality that has you. Nothing can have Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to possess something is to dominate it. As DQ, nothing dominates Big Self, but if there's domination and possession involved with regard to small self, it's the patterns that dominate and possess you rather than the other way around. Regards, 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
