Hi Dan,
Steve:
I think Pirsig's interpretation of causality as B values precondition
A renders the whole question of free will versus determinism moot for
MOQers. At least it should. Choices are expressions of our values. We
do not choose our values. We are our values.
Dan:
So you're
Hi Craig,
[Steve]
Pirsig's interpretation of causality as B values precondition A
Do you have an example of this? For instance, if (B) I splat on the ground,
does that
mean that (A) I value falling out of an airplane.
Craig
Steve:
That depends entirely on what you mean by I.
Hi Steve, Craig, others,
We have moved on to causality as a part of determinism (or not). That
is the temporal or domino sequence of events which describe our
reality. I have read in this thread that the I disappears at the
individual human consciousness. I also stated that the I appears in
Pass the dressing.
We have moved on to causality as a part of determinism (or not). That
is the temporal or domino sequence of events which describe our
reality. I have read in this thread that the I disappears at the
individual human consciousness. I also stated that the I appears in
[Steve]
Pirsig's interpretation of causality as B values precondition A
Do you have an example of this?
Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:06 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
Pirsig's interpretation of causality as B values precondition A
Do you have an example of this?
Have you read Pirsig?
In the Metaphysics of Quality causation is a metaphysical term that can
be replaced by value. To say
[Pirsig]
To say that A causes B or to say that B values
precondition A is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words
only. Instead of saying A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,
you can say Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.
In Iron filings value movement toward a
http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Minds%20and%20Morals/Free%20Will%20Free%20Won't%20-%20Obi.pdf
http://www.freewont.org/
Relevant to free will.
Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi Dan,
Dan:
...The static social and intellectual quality patterns
of our culture constrain us, or wedge and control our truths and
beliefs into conforming. In a static sense, we have certain options
open to us, yet those options and choices are predicated on the social
and intellectual
Hi Ham,
Steve:
I'm just saying that the future follows from the present which
follows from the past to the extent that we can tell stories about
how we got from the past to the present in terms of causes and
effects and constantly work on improving those stories to better
enable us to
Hello everyone
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Dan:
...The static social and intellectual quality patterns
of our culture constrain us, or wedge and control our truths and
beliefs into conforming. In a static sense, we have certain
Hey, Steve --
Steve, previously:
I'm just saying that the future follows from the present which
follows from the past to the extent that we can tell stories about
how we got from the past to the present in terms of causes and
effects and constantly work on improving those stories to better
1024x768
Normal
0
false
false
false
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:Table Normal;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:;
Hi Mr. 8, or can I call you 1?
Hi Steve, if I may:
Yes, you may.
[Mark]
While all has been said about Free-will, it is important to place the
discussion in MoQ format. The collection of patterns is not different
from the codependent arising that Buddha subscribes to. Now, Buddha
gets
Hello everyone
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we
don't
choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside of such value patterns.
Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well as
Hi Steve,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mr. 8, or can I call you 1?
[Mark]
8-ball is fine
Hi Steve, if I may:
Yes, you may.
[Mark]
Thank you dear sir.
[Mark]
While all has been said about Free-will, it is important to place the
Hi Dan and all.
In a metaphysics based in DQ/SQ, evolution is necessary to go from the
undefined to the defined in consciousness. The emotional level Dq is
indefinable. The intellectual level of logic DQ/SQ defines the activity at
the emotional (social) level creating the new level in
[Steve]
Any one who meditates has a sense of this. Thoughts simply
arise.
That thoughts simply arise when meditating does not mean that
that's what happens when not meditating.
[Craig, previously]
What is this compulsion we have when we don't feel compelled?
Perhaps the cases of free will
Hi 8-ball,
I can't make sense of what you say here since there is no individual
level in the MOQ any more than there is an emotional level as Joe
keeps talking about. I assume you mean the social level when you refer
to the Societal level, but then your Societal level doesn't really
sound like
Hi Steve.
You are right I meant the Social Level. The individual level is
otherwise known as the biological level, my mistake. I find the
former more useful since it includes personal consciousness. What is
your interpretation of the Social level in metaphysical terms?
Perhaps we need to start
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:18 AM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
you can demonstrate your agency with
whatever example you want so long as it demonstrates that you can will
yourself to believe something that you don't think is true.
Craig:
Of all the arguments against free will, this is
Hi Ham,
Steve:
My point was to say that free will/determinism is an issue with no
practical consequences and therefore a fake philosophical problem
not that we ought to choose free will. What could it ever mean
to behave as though you don't have any choice in the matter at hand?
It is to
Steve said:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we
don't
choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside of such value patterns.
Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well as our other patterns of preference.)
Ron jumps in:
I agree, but that is not to say
Hi Ron,
Steve said:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we
don't
choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside of such value patterns.
Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well as our other patterns of preference.)
Ron jumps in:
I agree, but that is
[Steve]
what matters here is HOW someone decides what
to believe. Is that belief compelled or is it freely chosen?
We sometimes say The evidence compelled him to believe his daughter
committed the crime. But we also say The evidence didn't compel
him to believe his daughter committed the crime,
Hi Steve, if I may:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Craig,
Please demonstrate your amazing ability to believe things by force of
will by willing yourself to believe that you didn't just write the
post below. You don't want to? So what? Just
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
what matters here is HOW someone decides what
to believe. Is that belief compelled or is it freely chosen?
We sometimes say The evidence compelled him to believe his daughter
committed the crime. But we also say The
Hi Steve --
You are missing the point. The question is not whether actions have
consequences, but rather where that decision to exit the room or not
comes from.
The question is whether choices represent the free will of the individual or
are predetermined patterns of quality (or intellect)
Hi DMB,
Steve said to dmb:
... Neither an autonomous agent nor a causal chain is posited as a
fundamental premise.
As a pragmatism, the question also gets dissolved when you consider the
question, what would I choose in this particular situation if I thought I did
not have a choice
[Steve]
Clearly we don't choose beliefs freely.
But it's clear to me that I do.
Have you considered the possibility that you don't have free will, but others
do?
Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi Craig,
Please demonstrate your amazing ability to believe things by force of
will by willing yourself to believe that you didn't just write the
post below. You don't want to? So what? Just will yourself to want to.
Best,
Steve
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
Steve said:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we
don't choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside of such value
patterns. Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well as our other patterns of
preference.)
dmb says:
Right, we can only adopt new beliefs if
Hi DMB,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we
don't choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside of such value
patterns. Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well
Steve, DMB, and All --
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
wrote:
...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true.
Clearly we don't choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no I outside
of such value patterns. Rather we ARE our beliefs (as
[Steve]
Clearly we don't choose beliefs freely.
[Craig, previously]
But it's clear to me that I do.
[Steve]
Please demonstrate your amazing ability to believe things by force of
will by willing yourself to believe that you didn't just write the
post [above].
But surely the test we need is
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:39 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
Clearly we don't choose beliefs freely.
[Craig, previously]
But it's clear to me that I do.
[Steve]
Please demonstrate your amazing ability to believe things by force of
will by willing yourself to believe that you
[Steve]
you can demonstrate your agency with
whatever example you want so long as it demonstrates that you can will
yourself to believe something that you don't think is true.
Of all the arguments against free will, this is the weakest.
Your self-contradictory criterion of free will is to will
11:18:58 -0400
From: peterson.st...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Marsha:
I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not
inherently exist.
Steve:
The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences
(patterns
Hi DMB, all
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do
not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist.
The first statement makes a negative claim about the nature
Hi All,
I recall some important thoughts Pirsig wrote about on freedom in an
introduction or postscript to some edition of something. He talked
about how American's hold freedom as an ideal, but that is problematic
since freedom only says that something is bad. It is only a negative
notion.
On May 2, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi DMB, all
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do
not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist.
MarshaV said to Steve:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
dmb says:
No, causation rules out free will. Determinism is predicated on the laws of
causality. Free will says we are not bound by such laws.
Take the
On May 2, 2011, at 12:37 PM, david buchanan wrote:
MarshaV said to Steve:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Marsha:
It was a rhetorical question. I mean causation is pattern, regularities,
convention.
Steve said:
Pirsig's view does not postulate an autonomous agent as a fundamental premise
that wills this and that, and so free will of the classical sort is denied by
the MOQ.
dmb says:
That's true. But the MOQ also divides DQ from sq, which is the distinction
between the quality of freedom
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
Pirsig's view does not postulate an autonomous agent as a fundamental premise
that wills this and that, and so free will of the classical sort is denied by
the MOQ.
dmb says:
That's true. But the MOQ also divides DQ from sq, which is the distinction
between the
MarshaV said to Steve:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Marsha later added:
It was a rhetorical question. I mean causation is pattern, regularities,
convention. Explanation relies on patterns. Patterns are
On May 2, 2011, at 1:39 PM, david buchanan wrote:
MarshaV said to Steve:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Marsha later added:
It was a rhetorical question. I mean causation is pattern, regularities,
Hi Ham,
I always accepted that I am IGNORANT of absolute truth since I have never
felt INNOCENT.
Joe
On 5/1/11 11:36 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
If you think about it, it becomes obvious that in order to exercise free
will, you must be innocent of Absolute Truth. That's why
Steve said to dmb:
... Neither an autonomous agent nor a causal chain is posited as a fundamental
premise.
As a pragmatism, the question also gets dissolved when you consider the
question, what would I choose in this particular situation if I thought I did
not have a choice versus if I
On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:19 AM, MarshaV wrote:
On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Marsha:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ,
an explanatory extension of a pattern?
Hi Marsha,
When Pirsig says, A causes be can be thought of as B values
precondition A. I added that there is nothing more to B (whatever the
collection pattern being thought about)
than such preferences since preference is another word value and
since in the MOQ everything identifiable is
Marsha:
I agree.
On May 1, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi Marsha,
When Pirsig says, A causes be can be thought of as B values
precondition A. I added that there is nothing more to B (whatever the
collection pattern being thought about)
than such preferences since
Marsha:
I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not
inherently exist.
Steve:
The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences
(patterns of value). Locating such preferences in a subject is an
inference from the preferences, so the subject borrows any
On May 1, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Marsha:
I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not
inherently exist.
Steve:
The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences
(patterns of value). Locating such preferences in a subject is an
it
conventionally and conceptually only between meals and never while you're
driving.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:58 -0400
From: peterson.st...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Marsha:
I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do
it
conventionally and conceptually only between meals and never while you're
driving.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:58 -0400
From: peterson.st...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Marsha:
I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do
Hi Marsha (Steve quoted) --
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation,
in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern?
[Steve]:
Yes, causation is understood as a stable pattern of preference,
B routinely
On May 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
Hi Marsha (Steve quoted) --
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation,
in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern?
[Steve]:
Yes, causation is
Greetings Ham,
I didn't mean to be rude, and reply without a greeting. I am too preoccupied
with a difficult task. Your questions are always welcome.
Marsha
On May 1, 2011, at 3:23 PM, MarshaV wrote:
On May 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
Hi Marsha (Steve quoted) --
Hi Ham,
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Marsha (Steve quoted) --
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation,
in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern?
Greetings,
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Marsha
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings,
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Yes, causation is understood as a stable pattern of preference, B
routinely values precondition A.
On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings,
Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, in the MoQ, an
explanatory extension of a pattern?
Yes, causation is understood as a
Hello Mark,
On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:43 AM, 118 wrote:
Marsha:
I'm sticking with DQ as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. - I do
think one should be able to explain how to recognize an intellectual
static pattern of value. To assign 'science' as an intellectual pattern
explains
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for the interaction, I certainly learned a lot. And, thanks
for that last math equation, Ham will be proud.
Cheerio,
Mark
On Thursday, April 28, 2011, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hello Mark,
On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:43 AM, 118 wrote:
Marsha:
I'm sticking with DQ as
You're always interesting, Mark. Always...And I'm sure there will
be other topics. This one seems to have gone poof into thin air, just like
magic.
Until we meet again,
Marsha
On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:03 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for the interaction, I certainly
Hi Joe,
Emotions? Hard to know what to do with them. I don't. Joy and love
are acceptable, while anger and hatred are not? But you must
be addressing the experience without the name and associated
concepts. Where does the experience behind anger and hatred
fit?
Marsha
On Apr 26,
Greetings Mark,
On Apr 27, 2011, at 1:09 AM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
My opinion is a little different than yours, I will try to explain below.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:16 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
[Mark before]
I think the question is, what is the best way to explain the
Hi Joe,
There is no emotional level in the MOQ. Emotions are considered to be
biological patterns.
Best,
Steve
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Marsha and all,
In a metaphysics of DQ/SQ, I would characterize the function of the
intellectual is to
Hello Steve,
Emotions are suppose to be confined to the biological level, especially
those based on fear and excitement. But I think i know what Joe is talking
about when he talks of the emotions associated with DQ. It's an expansion
of the heart, not a gut-feeling.
Marsha
On Apr
Hi Steve!
I expect biological patterns like instincts to exist differently from
cognitive patterns like emotions DQ.
Joe
On 4/27/11 6:11 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
There is no emotional level in the MOQ. Emotions are considered to be
biological patterns.
Hi Marsha,
In my book Anger and hatred are a response to evil a mistatement of good.
On 4/27/11 2:40 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Joe,
Emotions? Hard to know what to do with them. I don't. Joy and love
are acceptable, while anger and hatred are not? But you must
be
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:19 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings Mark,
[Snip]
Marsha:
I enjoy the bait and debate of philosophy, but I have no interest in
discussing religion or God/s.
[Mark]
No that wasn't my intention. I have not wish to sidestep into that
area. Many people
Hi John,
To start with it might be best to forget what it ought to be and
discuss what it is. How does it function now? Once that is understood
we might decide it should move towards something more like Royce
and Sill dreamed of it. They did use pretty words.
I would like to hear what
I don't have time for more than this quick quip this morning, I'm hitting
the road in an hour and I've still got a lot to do. But I did get a new
laptop battery this morn, and hopefully I'll be able to jot down a few
thoughts here and there at rest stops and such, and send them when I get a
Hi Marsha and all,
In a metaphysics of DQ/SQ, I would characterize the function of the
intellectual is to know and describe SQ. The emotional level perceives DQ.
Joe
On 4/25/11 11:16 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
snip
I would like to hear what you might have to say about the function
of
Hi Marsha,
My opinion is a little different than yours, I will try to explain below.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:16 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
[Mark before]
I think the question is, what is the best way to explain the levels so
that they can be useful and meaningful? What will bring
Hi Mark,
I agree that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects; it's not just
thinking and not just a collection of thoughts. Though static quality has
an interdependence with consciousness as it represents what can be
conceptualized. - I tend to see the categorization into a
for that fact.
-Ron
- Original Message
From: Mary marysonth...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Cc: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 6:23:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Ron? You are saying that DQ
Dan,
How can anyone have a intelligent philosophical discussion with anyone who
insists that
if you disagree with them you are disagreeing with the MoQ?
answer is one can not.
You are correct in the statement you made that you are not a philosopher,
because you certainly are not.
That sort of
Hi Mark, Marsha,
Well I've tried to take up the intellectual level several times in the
hopes of getting a different designation for the 4th level. But I've
dropped that quest. My answer to what the 4th level represents is the
classic/romantic fusion - art and science.
A passage I'm reading of
Hi Marsha,
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:07 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
I agree that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects; it's not
just
thinking and not just a collection of thoughts. Though static quality has
an interdependence with consciousness as it
Ron:
If all you are going to do is point to one small quote to support your
criticism
then that sort of thing is going to happen in a discussion.
Dan:
I think you're being quite unfair. I've written a number of posts
concerning free will vs determinism. The one small quote is really
what
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ron:
If all you are going to do is point to one small quote to support your
criticism
then that sort of thing is going to happen in a discussion.
Dan:
I think you're being quite unfair. I've written a
Ron:
First off, you are claiming interpretive legitimacy. Case closed, the MoQ says
what it says, end of discussion.
Dan:
I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are making the claims here.
Ron:
Was this not what you said?:
But the MOQ says what the MOQ says. That's what it
boils down to.
Hi Dan,
I think you're being quite unfair. I've written a number of posts
concerning free will vs determinism. The one small quote is really
what this is all about. If you want to believe in free will, fine.
Believe in it. But the MOQ says what the MOQ says. That's what it
boils down to. You
On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:14 AM, X Acto wrote:
Ron:
I'm sorry Dan but you do need to explain yourself if you care about any sort
of
meaningful philosophic discussion.
Marsha:
Most philosophic discussions are based on disagreement. And meaningful
is in the eyes of the beholder. Also what
Hi Ham,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hey, Mark --
Evidently you didn't see the connection between the 'Hiddenness' essay and
my recent post on Free Will, thereby missing my point. (I had wanted to
combine the two, but realized it would exceed the
Hi Joe,
If you are not predestined, then will is autonomous.
Mark
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Mark and all,
Will is not autonomous. I am not predestined.
Joe
On 4/20/11 12:54 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer the notion that
Hi Marsha,
Certainly meaningfulness in the moment can be subjective. There are
cases, however, where certain meaningfulness is supported through
subsequent history. We could then state that it is possible that one
thing is more meaningful than another in that context, and in fact
have its roots
Hi Mark,
I certainly would not want to be understood as supporting logical
anarchy, chaos or nihilism, but nor do I believe things are necessarily
'this OR that.' Even with the hindsight of history, there might be
disagreement concerning meaningfulness.
Marsha
On Apr 24, 2011, at
Hi Marsha,
Certainly everything is open to healthy and meaningful rhetoric
debate. One must admit, however, that there are certain philosophies
that rise to the popular top. I can only hope that MoQ becomes one of
these. In previous posts I have analogized these to rogue waves.
There is no way
Hi Craig,
I am not an expert on Laplace, and it seems from what you present that
he uses a billiard ball analogy. Something that became popular after
Newton, who Laplace followed in the timeline. The notion of the Laws
of Nature is a bit confusing. It could be argued, that a law is put
into
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:14 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ron:
First off, you are claiming interpretive legitimacy. Case closed, the MoQ
says
what it says, end of discussion.
Dan:
I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are making the claims here.
Ron:
Was
Hi Mark,
What do you mean by Intellectual Level? How do you define it?
By purpose? by function? Or something else?
I wonder if we can imagine beyond the intellectual level?
Marsha
On Apr 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Certainly everything is open to healthy and
Hi Marsha,
Just to let you know I read your question, thanks. I have tried to
open this subject in other posts, but it seems that this is the topic
nobody wants to talk about. Perhaps it is deemed trivial, has already
been covered and therefore not interesting, or else people do not have
a firm
Hi Mark --
[Ham]:
Quite simply, the life-experience of a human being is a proprietary
manifestation of the essential Source as differentiated Value. The
realization, actualization, and willful interpretation of Value is the
cognizant awareness of a free agent. So that the individual is free to
Ron? You are saying that DQ is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all
right and wrong can be based?
I got from the quote that betterness is not DQ but an initial response to DQ.
Isn't that different?
'So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an
ethical
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:31 AM, David Harding davidjhard...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
I think repeating is the best way. As you know I say - the only way to
experience Dynamic Quality is though perfection of static quality. That is,
going over something again and again and
or no meaning for that fact.
-Ron
- Original Message
From: Mary marysonth...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Cc: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 6:23:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Ron? You are saying that DQ
401 - 500 of 606 matches
Mail list logo
