Marsha to Andre:
And pointing to a chapter in LILA does not stand in for actually answering the
question.
Andre:
You say that it is a 'serious' question. Problem is Marsha; I do not take you
seriously. I pointed you to the relevant chapter in LILA. I can point you to
the relevant section in
The original post:
Greetings,
Bob Doyle stated that W.J. was the first! And he bemoaned that other
philosophers borrowed from W.J. without giving him proper credit. But that's
just foolishness. It has been documented that W.J. read and reread, in the
often cited crisis period of his
Andre,
I see. Terms are important, except when it is convenient for you that they
aren't.
Marsha
On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
Marsha to Andre:
And pointing to a chapter in LILA does not stand in for actually answering
the question.
Andre:
You say
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
Marsha said:
Bob Doyle stated that W.J. was the first! And he bemoaned that other
philosophers borrowed from W.J. without giving him proper credit. But that's
just foolishness. It has been documented that W.J. read and reread, in the
often cited crisis period of his life, Buddhist and
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
Bob Doyle stated that W.J. was the first! And he bemoaned that other
philosophers borrowed from W.J. without giving him proper credit. But that's
just foolishness. It has been documented that W.J. read and reread, in the
dmb said to Steve:
Dude,.. you brought the issue [the Jamesian two-stage model of free will] to
the table when you starting quoting from James essay, The Dilemma of
Determinism.
Steve replied:
I didn't bring in any two-stage model. That was Boyle's idea that you brought
in. I brought the
Marsha:
If you ever ask a real question, I'll be quite surprised and amazed. But you've
given me no reason to suspect that. You've given me every reason to think quite
the opposite. I think you have no business even being here. If you are
genuinely interested in anything I have to say about
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha:
If you ever ask a real question, I'll be quite surprised and amazed. But
you've given me no reason to suspect that. You've given me every reason to
think quite the opposite. I think you have no business even being here. If
you
Love how you and Andre both point to nowhere...
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha:
If you ever ask a real question, I'll be quite surprised and amazed. But
you've given me no reason to suspect that. You've given me every reason to
think quite the
Matt said:
... The problem might be best put in terms of the indeterminacy of
DQ/degeneracy thesis: if I want to always be following DQ as much as possible,
how do I know whether I'm dimly apprehending Dynamic Quality or apprehending
dimly with static patterns? ... The thesis suggests there's
Hi dmb,
Steve replied:
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 ...
dmb says:
Oh. My. God. You're so lost that you don't even understand your own evidence.
The man's name is Doyle, not Boyle, and his
Who is David Scott?
On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:17 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Matt said:
... The problem might be best put in terms of the indeterminacy of
DQ/degeneracy thesis: if I want to always be following DQ as much as
possible, how do I know whether I'm dimly apprehending Dynamic
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
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
Hi Steve and all,
Can evolution be described as the manifestation of a hierarchy in existence?
A rock is not an egg-cell. What are distinguishing marks of reality in
existence? I don't accept that size matters in evolution!
I distinguish colors. What and where is the marker that my eye uses
Hi Dave,
I apologize that it took me so long to attend to your responses. I got
swept away in the other branch of the conversation that broke out.
I've consolidated here my attempts to respond to the three recent
posts sent in my direction.
Matt said:
An extrapoloation of the train analogy
Matt said:
...I don't get how I've rendered DQ as trivial, inert, or meaningless in my
version of the glasses analogy, or train analogy.
...I don't see what is jarring or incongruous, as you say, between the work
Pirsig sees DQ as handling and my version of what that work is.
...I can't
Matt had said:
I perceive Dan's response, what I take to be a dialectically produced
attempt to avoid the problem Steve wanted to highlight in the face of
Ron's formulation, as further highlighting what Steve sees as the
problem in holding that DQ is both a placeholder/je-ne-sais-quoi
AND
Yes, science is always being created. Logic can only take us so far, which
is not far at all since it is circular. Quantum mechanics is proven by the
same math that is used to create the theory. I can use a ruler to prove the
earth is flat, so what.
Logic creates, it does not discover. My
In my opinion, Taleb makes way too many assumptions that lead to false
conclusions. His hindsight logic only proves that he can only look backwards.
I can make any number of statements that way. That big changes are
unpredictable needs to be proven through experimentation, not through
Hello everyone
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey Dan,
Dan said:
Yes I see what you mean... although I took a form of backtrack
from your previous post which I mistakenly attributed to Steve.
Matt:
Me? That doesn't sound like one of my
Yes, what nonsense, everything was already set forth with the Original Idea and
nothing has changed since then. Complete Monistic Intelligent Design babble.
We intuitively act as if we have free will because our intuition is much more
complex and sophisticated than our simple static (and
Joe,
Are you saying that sad has no definition? Every emotion has an agreed on
definition. That is what to define means, to arrive at agreement on. You do
not seem to want to agree on DQ, so why keep defining it in one way or another?
I disagree, DQ can not be defined through emotions, but
24 matches
Mail list logo
