To the extent that one's behavior is
controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the
extent
that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free.
(LILA, Chapter 12)
Here's a way to look at it: 'To the extent that one's behavior
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
To the extent that one's behavior is
controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the
extent
that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free.
(LILA,
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:15 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Dan:
To the extent one follows the undefined, they are free. This is very
powerful stuff. How does a person go about following that which is not
this, not that?
Ron:
Well thats why I favor better-ness for
Greetings Good Dan Glover,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
To the extent that one's behavior is
controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the
extent
that
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Dan:
I think Steve is taking the quote out of context here by stating the
dilemma doesn't come up. From LILA:
...
In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings Good Dan Glover,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
To the extent that one's behavior is
controlled by
Hi Dan,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings Good Dan Glover,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV
On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings Good
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On
Dan,
Dan:
That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you
might push back a bit if you didn't agree... that you might actually
indulge me in a dialogue. Well, no matter.
Marsha:
Oh, if you had wanted a dialogue maybe you wouldn't have started
with the push back
From: david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
http://www.myspace.com/570937368
squonk :-)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Dan,
Dan:
That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you
might push back a bit if you didn't agree... that you might actually
indulge me in a dialogue. Well, no matter.
Marsha:
Oh, if
On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Dan,
Dan:
That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you
might push back a bit if you didn't agree... that you might actually
indulge
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Dan,
Dan:
That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you
might push back a
Hi Dan,
Dan:
What Steve seems to be saying is: dilemma solved... no more need to
talk about it.
Steve:
That's not what I mean to say.
Dan:
Oh. I did get that impression from reading your posts. I am sorry if I
was in error.
Steve:
In fact I've been talking about it quite a lot.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Dan:
What Steve seems to be saying is: dilemma solved... no more need to
talk about it.
Steve:
That's not what I mean to say.
Dan:
Oh. I did get that impression from reading your posts. I am
Suppose we attempt to build a free-will robot.
It is designed to walk around town until it reaches an intersection with
WALK/DON'T WALK
signs. At that point it crosses in the WALK direction.
It has the will component but not the free component.
So we build in a random number generator. If it
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:43 AM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
Suppose we attempt to build a free-will robot.
It is designed to walk around town until it reaches an intersection with
WALK/DON'T WALK
signs. At that point it crosses in the WALK direction.
It has the will component but not the
Steve replied to Dave:
I don't disagree with Pirsig or the dictionary as far as the classic
dilemma.
I disagree with how YOU think this dilemma could possibly still come up in the
MOQ while Pirsig specifically says this dilemma does not come up in the MOQ!
Ron:
Bob specifically states that
Hello everyone
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Steve replied to Dave:
I don't disagree with Pirsig or the dictionary as far as the classic
dilemma.
I disagree with how YOU think this dilemma could possibly still come up in the
MOQ while Pirsig specifically
Greetings, Steve --
On Wed, 7/06/11 ar 4:27 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
said to dmb:
It is meaningless to add the word free in claiming free will.
We make choices. Sure, but what does it mean to say that your
choices are free? They aren't free, they are manifestations of
dmb twice said to Steve:
Like I said, we simply cannot have an intelligent conversation on this topic
unless and until you learn to use the terms properly. Until then your
statements will continue to be nonsensical and so talking to you is quite
pointless..
Steve replied:
I don't disagree
dmb said to Steve:
...You're still missing the point. Causality is NOT a form of preference or a
species of value. I'm saying that such a statement is logically impossible.
Given the meaning of the terms causality and preference, that statement is
nonsense. It literally makes no sense.
dmb says:
No one takes the word cause to mean events unfold in a mechanical law-like
way? Right, no one except me, Pirsig, James, Siegfried, the Stanford
Encyclopedia and the dictionary.
Steve:
Cause CAN be used in that way, but it doesn't necessarily mean that
in a given usage. If it did,
On 7/7/11 11:19 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
Not only are we dependent on Value for our being, our conscious
differentiation of it literally creates our reality. The qualities and
attributes we experience in this world are volitional in that they
represent the beingness
dmb,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb twice said to Steve:
Like I said, we simply cannot have an intelligent conversation on this topic
unless and until you learn to use the terms properly. Until then your
statements will continue to be
I see 3 issues:
1) Is there a real (as opposed to illusionary) experience that we call free
will?
2) If so, is 'free will' a good term to describe this experience?
3) Also if so, is the traditional explanation or an explanation in MoQ terms
better?
1) [Pirsig]
Free Will is the philosophic
Doesn't 1) rest on the assumption that there is a real self to
experience free will? Few would deny that there is a sense
of self, but is that sense of self based on anything real?
On Jul 7, 2011, at 2:32 AM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
I see 3 issues:
1) Is there a real (as opposed to
Hi Craig,
2) [Steve]
free will is a meaningless term in the MOQ.
Craig:
But how can the term be meaningless if it refers to a real experience?
What I meant by that claim is that as Pirsig said in Lila, In the
Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. Likewise, as
Pirsig says in
Craig asked Steve:
But how can the term be meaningless if it refers to a real experience?
Steve replied:
What I meant by that claim is that as Pirsig said in Lila, In the Metaphysics
of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. Likewise, as Pirsig says in LC, if
...the MOQ can argue that free
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Craig asked Steve:
But how can the term be meaningless if it refers to a real experience?
Steve replied:
What I meant by that claim is that as Pirsig said in Lila, In the
Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma
dmb said:
Right, Pirsig says the dilemma doesn't come up. And in the very next lines he
says, To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free.
dmb,
dmb says:
...Pirsig's statement is about the extent to which one's behavior is
controlled or free. ...He's talking about the extent to which people are free
or not within the terms of the MOQ.
Steve:
That's right, but what is behavior possibly controlled BY and what
could it possibly be
Steve said:
Causality is of course a form of preference or a species of value as is
_everything in the MOQ_. I get that. I really really do. This doesn't mean we
need to throw out the word and are making use of the word in a radically
different way when that others won't understand when, say,
Steve said to dmb:
I'm sorry but it must be you who doesn't have a strong enough grasp on the
ancient free will/determinism debate ... SOM free will/determinism is not about
the presence or absence of choice. Of course we make choices. The SOM free
will/determinism question is about the
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
Causality is of course a form of preference or a species of value as is
_everything in the MOQ_. I get that. I really really do. This doesn't mean we
need to throw out the word and are making use of the
On Jul 7, 2011, at 2:50 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb:
I'm done with this. You're impossibly thick and I'm wasting my time.
A.Insult and evade, insult and evade. Your standard operating
procedure is an endless loop of weaseling.
_
__
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo,
On 7/5/11 5:15 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Steve:
I've said all along that we act on our preferences, we will acts, we
make choices, we have desires and intentions. What I have pointed out
is that in the MOQ, as Pirsig says, this free will/determinism thing
is
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
I'm sorry but it must be you who doesn't have a strong enough grasp on the
ancient free will/determinism debate ... SOM free will/determinism is not
about the presence or absence of choice. Of
Hi Ron,
Ron;
I suggest to Steve that the arguement is a good one..and to take the time to
accurately articulate it.
Steve:
Ok, let me try again.
Pirsig denies both horns of the ancient free will/determinism dilemma.
He denies determinism of the mechanistic sort since his view is of a
is undefinable, one's behavior is
free.
How did dmb miss this?
Marsha
On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:53 PM, X Acto wrote:
- Original Message
From: david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 3:38:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
dmb
Steve said to dmb:
I have always held that Pirsig denies the determinism horn of the old supposed
dilemma. ...Note you also quoted him saying, In the MOQ this dilemma doesn't
come up. The whole free will/determinism issue is a non-issue for the MOQ.,
since, The Laws of Nature' are moral laws.
Hi dmb,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
I have always held that Pirsig denies the determinism horn of the old
supposed dilemma. ...Note you also quoted him saying, In the MOQ this
dilemma doesn't come up. The whole free
dmb said to Steve:
.., if you can't see how causality precludes moral responsibility then there
are many, many explanations available for your edification and amusement.
Nobody has to take my word for it.
Steve:
No, I don't take your word for it, but you've given me nothing more than that.
RMP wrote:
Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition
which gives man perfect satisfaction.
Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by
others. It is
Ooops. I had this wrong on two counts: chapter number and rightness.
RMP wrote:
Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition
which gives man perfect satisfaction.
Dharma is
Hi dmb,
dmb said to Steve:
.., if you can't see how causality precludes moral responsibility then there
are many, many explanations available for your edification and amusement.
Nobody has to take my word for it.
Steve:
No, I don't take your word for it, but you've given me nothing
- Original Message
From: david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 3:38:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
dmb said to Dan:
Determinism is the claim that our actions are caused by forces beyond our
control. It's a claim about
I suggest to Steve that the arguement is a good one..and to take the time to
accurately articulate it..
without the ker smackity-smack ameri-street shit talk
It fascinates and disturbs me that having given dmb just a small taste
of the disrespect that he routinely pays everyone on this forum
is what it is
just my opinion man
the dude..
- Original Message
From: Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 8:47:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
I suggest to Steve that the arguement is a good one..and to take
dmb said to Dan:
Determinism is the claim that our actions are caused by forces beyond our
control. It's a claim about the causes of our actions, not the predictability
of the consequences of our actions. In the former, our actions are the effects
of causes while in the latter our actions
Hi dmb, Dan,
dmb says:
...If we say that our actions are the effects of preconditions beyond our
control, then we've still formulated these actions as the effects of causes.
The main idea of saying B values precondition A (instead of saying A causes B)
is to replace causality with the
Steve:
I don't think Pirsig is replacing causality so much as explaining it
in MOQ terms. And few think of nature as following laws so much as
laws are descriptions of what nature does.
Steve:
That last sentence didn't make any sense.
Steve:
You're right, Steve. What I meant to say is that I
Dmb,
I do not get your interpretation of what Steve is saying. Doesn't sound
remotely familiar. Would you please point out the quotes you are using that
point to Steve's determinism is simply a return to amoral, scientific
objectivity, where nothing is right or wrong. It just functions
Hi dmb,
Steve replied:
...Why would you want to praise or condemn someone for their view on free
will/determinism? First of all, that would be trying to apply a social level
tool of control over someone's intellectual patterns. That's an MOQ no-no.
The intellectual concern is whether it
Steve said:
... What I meant to say is that I think few think of nature as following laws.
I would expect that most people think of scientific laws as descriptive rather
than prescriptive since the latter position sounds absurd.
dmb says:
Most folks would never even think of that, or if
Hi dmb,
Steve said dmb:
Of course I would never say that are follows laws. The laws of physics are
intellectual patterns of value, and the fact that we can predict the behavior
of things in no way impedes choice. This is why I thought you were talking
about predetermination. I can't
Steve said to dmb:
...Why would you think that I limit morals to the social level? All I said is
that praise and blame are social patterns, and they are. When I said that the
intellectual concern is true/false, I follow the MOQ in thinking that that too
is a moral concern. It's just a
On 7/01/11, 5:46 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Ham,
This is your metaphysics at its worst. You deny evolution, and give lip
service to individuality as the systematic form of existence. one
and systematic are not equivalent in evolution or even common parlance,
yet you
On 7/2/11 3:18 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
I do not deny evolution. But since it's only the mode of existence, not its
source, why should I equate one or unity with evolution? Oneness applies
only to the Absolute Source, where it defines metaphysical reality rather
HI Mark,
When I was growing up many people discussed the one and the many.
Joe
On 6/30/11 4:40 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
Then why even use the term 1?
Mark
On Jun 30, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, Ham Priday
On 6/30/11 9:03 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Mark --
On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Everything in existence is individuated from every other. That includes
human beings. If you are persuaded that the self-evident fact of human
Hi Horse,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
Hi Steve, Dave and others
The general impression I get with this debate about Free Will / Determinism
is the same impression that I get with the Selfishness / Altruism debate.
It's somewhere between political and
Hello everyone
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
dmb:
We want to know whether we are responsible or determined for practical
reasons And that's why we want to know about responsibility and
determinism, because of the practical effects it
Dan said:
...What some contributors seem to be saying is that determinism entails a lack
of responsibility for one's actions. That is only so if we insist on believing
our actions cause outcomes in predictable ways. They both do and do not.
dmb says:
Well, yes, that's how the issue is framed
On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
Everything in existence is individuated from every other. That includes
human beings. If you are persuaded that the self-evident fact of human
individuality is a crapshoot, it's your problem, not mine.
--Ham
There are two
A dictionary may perform many functions; normally one of them is NOT to
standardize language.
___
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/
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb said to Steve:
My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are both real because
both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever that's supposed to mean,
don't have anything to do with it. I
Hi Dan,
Steve:
For what practical reasons do we want to know whether we are
responsible or determined? We would still need to condemn the
intention to do harm and praise the intention to do good whether or
not we think of people as subject to a chain of causality or free of
such chains (for
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:04 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said:
...What some contributors seem to be saying is that determinism entails a
lack of responsibility for one's actions. That is only so if we insist on
believing our actions cause outcomes in predictable
Hi Joe,
Then why even use the term 1?
Mark
On Jun 30, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
Everything in existence is individuated from every other. That includes
human beings. If you are
Hi Mark --
On 6/29/11 9:35 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Everything in existence is individuated from every other. That includes
human beings. If you are persuaded that the self-evident fact of human
individuality is a crapshoot, it's your problem, not mine.
On 6/30/11 2:07
Hello everyone
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Steve:
For what practical reasons do we want to know whether we are
responsible or determined? We would still need to condemn the
intention to do harm and praise the intention to do good
Hi Ham,
Thought I should clear up the fact that I do not deny a subjective self.
Upon investigation, I have found no evidence of an autonomous self. And the
credit for the excellent paraphrasing to the extent that we follow static
quality, there is no choice. By following Dynamic Quality,
Hello everyone
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said:
...What some contributors seem to be saying is that determinism entails a
lack of responsibility for one's actions. That is only so if we insist on
believing our actions cause outcomes
Hello Ham,
You might find the presentations, discussion and QA interesting on
the reflective self very interesting. There are times when I would like
to agree with you but I do not have the language. The discourse between
these gentlemen might help.
Hi Steve, Dave and others
The general impression I get with this debate about Free Will /
Determinism is the same impression that I get with the Selfishness /
Altruism debate.
It's somewhere between political and ideological.
That's to say that proponents of either side see the distinction as
On 6/28/11 10:32 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
Joe, in my epistemology Will is simply intention or what we want. And the
fact that what we want is often not what a deterministic Nature gives us is
itself proof that our Will is free. Free Will is not something added to
Horse said to Steve, Dave and others:
The general impression I get with this debate about Free Will / Determinism is
the same impression that I get with the Selfishness / Altruism debate. It's
somewhere between political and ideological. That's to say that proponents of
either side see the
Hi Horse
I think it's worse than that. I think that Marsha has an interesting point.
Neither free wiil nor Determinism.
Because:
In every market research we can define a group of people that will probaly buy
the actual item and another group that will probably NOT buy it. And there is
always a
On Wed, 6/28/11, 2:55 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Ham and ALL,
Will as intention or what we want removes will from metaphysical
consideration, and leaves individuality a crapshoot.
I don't understand the meaning of this proclamation at all, Joe.
Will by definition is
Hi Marsha,
If you read A Pluralistic Universe carefully, you will find that free
will derives from pluralism, whereas determinism derives from monism.
I cannot point to pages since I have the free kindle version.
I am not sure if this answers your question.
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at
On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
On 6/26/11 9:55 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
How can free will exist without an independent agent?
How can we be morally responsible if our values (and consequent actions) are
predetermined?
Experiential
Dmb,
Does James's definition of free will conform to the the standard dictionary
definition? If it does, why did we need all these quotes and explain it?
Marsha
On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:29 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Charlene wrote:
...The pragmatic method includes directives for
Dmb,
So while you chastise others for deviating from a standard english dictionary
definition, even for example when I cited resources addressing an expanded
Buddhist definition of reification, you offer in your discourse on free will
what you (dmb) says that Charlene says that James says
I know full well and never said that DMb believes in an omniscient superbeing.
My point of course is that I can't see why anyone who does not believe in such
a being would think predetermination is a real issue.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
dmb said to Steve:
My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are both real because
both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever that's supposed to mean,
don't have anything to do with it. I would accuse you of misconstruing my
position but that would be too generous. You're
Marsha asked dmb:
Does James's definition of free will conform to the the standard dictionary
definition? If it does, why did we need all these quotes and explain it?
dmb says:
Your question is predicated on a misconception. Dictionaries can only tell us
if we're using words properly. They
On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:21 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha asked dmb:
Does James's definition of free will conform to the the standard dictionary
definition? If it does, why did we need all these quotes and explain it?
dmb says:
Your question is predicated on a misconception.
On 6/27/11 5:06 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
You can't ride off in all directions on your horse because it would
violate the laws of nature which support the design and dynamics of
existence. These laws afford us a consistent, logical, and predictable
ground for
On 6/28/11 1:25 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
On 6/26/11 9:55 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
How can free will exist without an independent agent?
How can we be morally responsible if our values (and
On Tues, 6/28/11 at 4:23 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Ham,
Free Will adds indeterminacy into our actions, otherwise they
wouldn't be free. What in me defines the indeterminate so that
actions are not predestined? Pirsig very cleverly suggested a
metaphysics DQ/SQ where DQ
On Jun 26, 2011, at 10:52 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
Think about it, Steve. I complain about your tactics precisely because they
ruin any chance of having a real conversation.
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:22 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Steve said to Matt:
Then there is the issue of
Hello everyone
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey Dan,
Matt said:
I didn't mean a textual ambiguity on Pirsig's part, but an idea I've
before called the indeterminacy of Dynamic Quality thesis. I think
Pirsig is more or less clear about
I like the horns of a rabbit idea.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:44 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Steve,
I'm no expert, but I've been exposed to neither/nor logic, as a non-dualistic
logic, through my reading of Buddhist philosophy. It seems to me it places
the issue of freewill into
Hi Marsha,
I assume you are reposting these lines because you fine them as ironic
(given the source) as I do.
Best,
Steve
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:23 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jun 26, 2011, at 10:52 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
Think about it, Steve. I complain about your
Steve,
So ironic that I don't even know what to think.
Marsha
On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi Marsha,
I assume you are reposting these lines because you fine them as ironic
(given the source) as I do.
Best,
Steve
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:23 AM,
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
Hi Marsha, Steve, [Matt quoted] --
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net asked:
How about neither accepting free will, nor rejecting freewill.
[Steve replied]:
I think that is somewhat what Pirsig does in Lila.
dmb says:
Hey Steve, here is one example wherein I complained about your tactics
precisely because they spoiled any chance of having a real conversation. I
accused you of inventing the omniscient super-being, the one that supposedly
keeps me and James awake at night. (James hasn't had any
Dmb,
Since I did the reposting,,,
You left off your last statement the You freakin weasel part., which was way
out of proportion. Now your neglecting to include the last statement is even
more ironic, but not surprising. Here's the entire quote:
--
On Jun 23, 2011,
101 - 200 of 606 matches
Mail list logo
