Hello Ham,
My understanding of static quality (Value) has always been about process:
Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally
co-dependent and impermanent. (Not independent objects, subjects
or things-in-themselves.) Ever-changing
Hi Matt,
Matt of dmb:
As you say, the question of WHAT you ARE and the question of HOW
you should ACT are two different questions. I agree for the most
part...
Steve:
Well, yeah, they are literally two different questions, but I'm
surprised you agreed here as I was actually embarrassed for
Hi dmb, all,
Last night I read an essay by William James called The Dilemma of
Determinism where he defends free will before an audience of Harvard
Divinity School students in 1884. Some interesting things came up for
me.
First of all, James seems to accept that determinism is the fashion of
the
Dear Steve
That fashion of the day was anyway 130 years ago.
The MOQ view upon free will says that there are no such thing as TOTAL
determinism nor TOTAL indeterminism.
To the extent that you're trying to get it right, act rationally and keep
control, you're determined and not free.
Quantum
Hi Jan-Anders,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson
janander...@telia.com wrote:
That fashion of the day was anyway 130 years ago.
Steve:
Yeah, I thought it was an interesting historical note to see what sort
of rhetorical position James saw himself in. The Determinists had
Thanks Marsha.
From: val...@att.net
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:00:57 -0400
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Taking Words Seriously
Matt,
Regardless of my disinterest in creating a distinction between
amateur and professional philosopher, you should probably
pursue
[Steve]
I appreciate your response. I especially liked your analogy of having
free will in the conventional sense that we say someone has ADD, but I
think there is an important possible difference.
[Arlo]
Well, no analogy is perfect. :-)
[Steve]
We can certainly understand ADD pragmatically
Hey Steve,
Steve said:
I'm surprised you agreed here [that the question of what is is
different than how to act] as I was actually embarrassed for dmb
for trying to make a point in this forum by insisting on a fundamental
difference between IS and OUGHT.
Matt:
I've been thinking about that
Hi Matt,
Sometimes it seems, whether one is interested or not, as simple
at the difference between being fascinated by the big picture and
being captivated by the detail. That's only speculation.
They phrase 'clap-trap' was too strong.
Marsha
On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Matt
[Steve]
We can certainly understand ADD pragmatically in terms of the different
experiences we have of those with it versus without it, but how does the
same apply to free will?
[Arlo]
I think we can understand freedom (or agency) pragmatically, although we
don't have a control group we
Hahaha... a dance of the picador.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIXnecK6M0Y
___
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/
The Aphorism: One doesn't _have_ static patterns, one _is_ static patterns.
dmb said to Matt:
You're only working with the static half of the aphorism... DQ is the other
half, of course. If you're going to subscribe to Pirsig's pithy description of
the self, I think it's only fair to include
Andre:
Hi Steve, I'll clarify some more where my confusion lies: When the
artist in front of the canvas goes: There...that's where the brush
goes...I get the sense that you still argue that that action is
(pre)determined.
Because I am not sure that when you say:
The theory of free will
Pirsig said: But the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels with
increasing freedom to make choices as one ascends the levels.
Steve replied:
I posted that quote months ago and am well aware of it. ...It is certainly not
the logical and necessary basis for moral responsibility
Hi Andre.
Andre:
Hi Steve, I'll clarify some more where my confusion lies: When the artist in
front of the canvas goes: There...that's where the brush goes...I get the
sense that you still argue that that action is (pre)determined.
Steve:
I understand causality as an intellectual pattern of
[Steve]
For [DMB] the terms [agency/freedom] are mutually exclusive with
determinism. How would you distinguish these terms?
[Arlo]
Again, I'm not following your entire dialogue with DMB, so I can't make
a comment about that (I do flag all posts that reference me by name).
I think agency
Hi Arlo and Steve,
In what prison does 'agency' fail to produce freedom? Only if 'agency'
remains indefinable will it have enough elasticity to achieve metaphysical
status. All mechanical 'agents' are forbidden access to freedom. Why
replace DQ with agency? If agency is conceptualized to be
Hi Joe --
Hi Ham,
Hopefully we are at the crux of our disagreement. Physics,
metaphysics follow differing logical rules. The logic for physics
(mathematics) is incapable of describing evolution (levels in
existence), metaphysics.
The only mathematical logic I am aware of that can be
Hi Steve (Arlo mentioned) --
On Tues, 9/13/11 at 12:07 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
wrote:
On p222 of Lila's Child, Bodvar asks: If the world is composed of
values, then who is doing the valuing?
Pirsig's response to Bodvar: This is a subtle slip back into
subject-object
Hello everyone
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Andre Broersen
andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve:
Nice job digging up those quotes and tying them together.
dmb:
Thanks, Andre. Nice work, as usual.
Andre:
Thank you Steve and dmb for your kind words in response to my last post. I
had
20 matches
Mail list logo
