On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:46 PM, John Carl wrote:
Marsha wrote:
I accept that duality is the convention.
Ham responded:
But what does it gain us intellectually to
simply call existence a convention?
John replies:
It frees us to realize we are making a choice. There
Sure does. Thanks for the link Dan.
Ian
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
I came across this and thought it might interest a few people here:
DMB said
Be honest, Ian. You are interested in negatively characterizing my
macho stance for personal reasons. [...] Even if I were an
autistic macho romantic, how would saying so qualify as anything more
than an ad hominem attack?
Absolutely no dmb - that phrasing just summarised Matt's
Matt, DMB,
DMB, clearly I'm nobody you need care about, you can dismiss me with
your defensive repartee anytime you like, but can you not see a
problem when you find yourself even hinting that Matt espouses phoney
and hypocritical behaviour ?
Ian
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Matt Kundert
Hi dmb,
Steve said:... I am saying that the term free will has a usage in the
English language, and the MOQ's response to the question of freedom is
incompatible with this everyday usage. ... and my point is that the MOQ's
answer is to accept neither free will or determinism in their usual
Steve, dmb
I appreciate the free-will vs determinism (in the MoQ context) debate
here is overlaid with the meta-argument about whose behaviour
maintaining a weak position exasperates who and why ... etc. But on
the core point here:
Steve, I side with DMB.
I can't buy your a-determinism /
Ian,
Can you explain how free-will IS relevant with the MOQ?
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Steve, dmb
I appreciate the free-will vs determinism (in the MoQ context) debate
here is overlaid with the meta-argument about whose behaviour
maintaining a weak
Marsha,
Yes,
Ian
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ian,
Can you explain how free-will IS relevant with the MOQ?
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Steve, dmb
I appreciate the free-will vs determinism (in the MoQ context) debate
Ian,
Well, I wouldn't want anyone to think my interest was just
to disagree with dmb. I'll go fishing and let you big boys
deal with the Will.
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Marsha,
Yes,
Ian
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net
:-)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ian,
Well, I wouldn't want anyone to think my interest was just
to disagree with dmb. I'll go fishing and let you big boys
deal with the Will.
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Marsha,
Yes,
Hi Ian,
Ian said:
Steve, I side with DMB.
I can't buy your a-determinism / a-free-willist stance.
Free-will is not irrelevant to morals in the MoQ context.
Steve:
That depends on what you mean by free will. If you mean DQ, then
obviously it is very relevant.
Ian:
By taking the a-stance I
Hi Steve,
Good, glad I misunderstood your point, we do then seem still to be
reasonably closely aligned.
What I am missing then is what (substantive issue) you and dmb are
actually disagreeing over (if anything).
(Not that rhetorical style of argumentation is not a substantive issue
- given our
:-)
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Hi Steve,
Good, glad I misunderstood your point, we do then seem still to be
reasonably closely aligned.
What I am missing then is what (substantive issue) you and dmb are
actually disagreeing over (if anything).
(Not
dmb said to Steve:
Well, as I see it, you are maintaining a very weak position in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Steve replied:
...I also think that _you_ are maintaining a very weak position in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary or I wouldn't still be
Steve said to dmb:
You have asserted that would need to drop the notions of blameworthiness and
praiseworthiness if we drop the term free will. But consider, where do
Poincare's ideas come from? Certainly not his conscious willing of them. It is
not _will_ that makes him praiseworthy as a
Ian said:
Absolutely no dmb - that phrasing just summarised Matt's post to you, so that
you could see it was exactly parallel to the earlier water off a duck's back
problem I was referring to - again based on Steve's criticisms of you.
Obviously you and you attitude are now being criticised
dmb,
Weren't you pushing that DQ degenerates into chaos just last June 16th?
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
You have asserted that would need to drop the notions of blameworthiness and
praiseworthiness if we drop the term free
In Part 1, I provided some thoughts on the use of words to better
describe Quality. I suggested that the use of an antonym may be more
useful than a synonym. In my latest addition to that thread, I
proposed that the opposite of Quality is The Absurd. Therefore
Quality is synonymous with
Hi, Michael R. Brown
if you really were the snobbish, traditional presciptivist you say you
are
I didn't. As a traditional prescriptivist regarding the backbone of
language, I don't go with the trendy second meaning. I note you didn't
quote me - purely accidentally.
What were the
Hi Mark,
I think it better put that the feminine represents interconnectedness,
while the masculine represents the linear.
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:55 PM, 118 wrote:
In Part 1, I provided some thoughts on the use of words to better
describe Quality. I suggested that the use of an
Ron and any interested MOQers:
I appreciate your efforts, Ron, but now that the specifics are on the table I'm
even more skeptical. If fact, I'd say the passage you dished up would count as
a classic example of Platonic rationalism and the slander of Sophists as
pandering pastry chefs by
Instead of asking Do humans have free will?,
why not try using reverse-reverse engineering to answer the question?
Assume you are an all-powerful creator, how would you create an entity with
free will?
You would give it life, consciousness, perception, memory, et al.
Is there any characteristic
HI dmb,
Steve said to dmb:
You have asserted that would need to drop the notions of blameworthiness and
praiseworthiness if we drop the term free will. But consider, where do
Poincare's ideas come from? Certainly not his conscious willing of them. It
is not _will_ that makes him
Hi dmb,
I forgot this important part...
Steve said:
What people are seeking in their hope that science and philosophy can support
the concept of free will is not freedom in the DQ sense at all but rather
control. They want to be able to say that it is I who is in charge. This
I refers to
That works for me
Mark
On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:06 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
I think it better put that the feminine represents interconnectedness,
while the masculine represents the linear.
Marsha
On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:55 PM, 118 wrote:
In Part 1, I
Ayn Rand and her Objectivists - who, in Bob's terms, attempt to tame DQ by
making it as SQ as possible - have a very handy tool for looking at these
hoary concepts, like free will: ask yourself, what in reality (which
includes our relation to it) gives rise to the concept? Why is it needed in
26 matches
Mail list logo
