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 is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all
right
Dan:
Do you really want me to quote from LILA again, Ron?
Ron:
Do you really want me to also quote Lila again, Dan?
Ron:
I have, and I do understand I simply maintain that this does not agree with
the general meaning of Pirsigs works I have explained why, that you are using
a particular
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:39 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Dan:
Do you really want me to quote from LILA again, Ron?
Ron:
Do you really want me to also quote Lila again, Dan?
Dan:
If you really want to have a discussion, quit being stupid. Last
chance. Otherwise,
Dan:
If you have and you do understand, then why are you accusing me of
blasting you with quotes without any explanation? Do we not use
particular contexts to convey overall general meaning? Those contexts
must be consistent, and as far as I know, mine are consistent.
Ron:
Then connect up
[Ham]
Laplace used the premise that absolute knowledge would give us the power to
predict events. The flaw is that it is not possible to acquire
absolute knowledge; so he is begging the conclusion that events
are deterministic.
Laplace's argument does not depend on the possibility of
Ron previously to Andre:
Pragmatically Andre, DQ being understood as undefined betterness is more
useful than insisting that it remain unconceptualized.
Andre then:
Yes and no Ron. I sympathize with Pirsig when he argues that we should keep all
concepts out of DQ. 'Concepts are always
Andre,
- Original Message
From: Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, April 23, 2011 4:00:36 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Ron previously to Andre:
Pragmatically Andre, DQ being understood as undefined betterness is more useful
than insisting
Mary:
What do you use it for?
Ron:
an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based.(LILA,
p 161)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
To say that DQ is strictly nonconceptual is to say that DQ is strictly
meaningless
and does not
Ron to Andre:
Thnx for taking up the conversation Andre, I feel it is an important one for the
discuss.
Andre:
Likewise Ron, it is also important for me.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hello everyone
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:36 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
undefined betterness is natural selection
on every level.
Dan:
Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in
other words, a
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
undefined betterness is natural selection
on every level.
Dan:
Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in
other words, a metaphysics of substance.
Dan comments:
Within the framework of the MOQ, biological
Hello everyone
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:50 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
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
What do you use it for?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
To say that DQ is strictly nonconceptual is to say that DQ is strictly
meaningless
and does not explain anything. It is rendered useless.
Andre:
I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'.
Isn't betterness always in context?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Disagree, Mary.
Betterness is not due to static patterns.
Perception of any Static patterns of value is due to betterness.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
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 word limit.)
Quite simply, the life-experience of a human being is a proprietary
Ron,
I have had an idea about this for some time, that I'd like to share:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:29 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
As Phaedrus argues:
Such a philosopher was not long in coming.
His name was Aristotle'. (ZMM, p 374)
Ron;
This is one of those statements, if I
Yup, I'd say so Mary. Betterness is always in context and all static
patterns arise due to the realization that its better that they should be
construed as patterns out of the undifferentiated continuum.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't betterness
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 evolution follows free will. I have a
problem with placing things under the theories of evolution. Quality
does not evolve, since such a
Hi Everyone,
I'll chime in here and say that I think betterness can be both in and out of
context just as it can be defined and undefined.
On 23/04/2011, at 3:09 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup, I'd say so Mary. Betterness is always in context and all static
patterns arise
Hi Craig --
On Thurs, April 21, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Craig craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Ham, previously]:
The best known argument against Free Will was formulated
in the 19th century by Simon Laplace, who proposed that if
there existed a mind that knew, to the minutest detail,
everything about
Hi Mark and All --
Here is the follow-up of my previous message which quoted Murray's
'Hiddenness' essay.
On Tues, Apr 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Free will can be considered a personal choice, although there are
those who claim we have been determined to believe
Hi Ham,
Well written. I have some comments below.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Mark and All --
Here is the follow-up of my previous message which quoted Murray's
'Hiddenness' essay.
On Tues, Apr 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com
Ron:
Second, that is exactly what I'm saying some things are better than others
and
not I'm not sure how this is a support to that statement that DQ is
unconceptualized and must remain unconceptualized within the framework of the
MoQ.
Andre:
There is a real danger here I believe Ron. And
[Ham}
The best known argument against Free Will was formulated in the
19th century
by Simon Laplace, who proposed that if there existed
a mind that knew, to
the minutest detail, everything about every particle
in the universe at any
given point, then that mind would also be able
to
Hi Mark --
On Tues, Apr 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Free will can be considered a personal choice, although there are
those who claim we have been determined to believe in free will.
On the other hand we are free to choose determinism. The latter
is like electing a
Ron previously:
The counter argument I make
1: Choice is reality, every last bit
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as betterness
to which Andre responded:
I really think a Zen Buddhist will laugh at this...and perhaps Pirsig as well.
Ron in
Hi all,
A person often has the ability to will a choice for what she prefers
among available options. She can even choose what she does not prefer
if only to prove she has that power. But she can't choose to prefer
what she doesn't prefer. Can she?
Are we not therefore slaves to our
Hi Ham,
Ham said
To be predetermined to believe in something makes no sense to me, and I'm
amazed at how many MDers resist the idea of man as a free agent.
Why not demonstrate your amazing freedom of will by willing yourself
to believe something you now think is false?
Can you will yourself
3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as betterness
to which Andre responded:
I really think a Zen Buddhist will laugh at this...and perhaps Pirsig as well.
Ron in response:
Perhaps Andre perhaps, But I believe the master as well as Bob would agree. For
arguements sake, lets see what the
Andre:
I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'.
Agree, Andre. Betterness is a static pattern of value.
Best,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Steve said:
Are we not therefore slaves to our preferences? We did not choose our
preferences, yet they determine everything we do. But according to the
MOQ, we literally ARE our preferences. Then WE determine everything we
do within the range of available options. Thus the whole question of
free
To say that DQ is strictly nonconceptual is to say that DQ is strictly
meaningless
and does not explain anything. It is rendered useless.
- Original Message
From: Mary marysonth...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 9:10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free
[Steve]
She can even choose what she does not prefer...
Are we not slaves to our preferences?
You answered your own question. We can choose what we don't
prefer, therefore we are NOT slaves to our preferences.
[Steve]
We did not choose our preferences
Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.
I
Hi Craig,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
She can even choose what she does not prefer...
Are we not slaves to our preferences?
You answered your own question. We can choose what we don't
prefer, therefore we are NOT slaves to our preferences.
[Steve]
Ever read Aesop, Steve? The fox in deciding the grapes are probably sour,
decided to dislike what he prefered. Easy.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
A person often has the ability to will a choice for what she prefers
among
Disagree, Mary.
Betterness is not due to static patterns.
Perception of any Static patterns of value is due to betterness.
John
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Andre:
I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'.
Agree, Andre. Betterness is a
John to Mary:
Disagree Mary.
Betterness is not due to static patterns.
Perception of any Static patterns of value is due to betterness.
Andre:
Disagree John. How do you know something is 'better' if not relation into
something static, something that is already there which has been improved
I guess that's about your speed. You just keep on taking your moral
philosophy from Aesop then. I'll take Pirsig.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Ever read Aesop, Steve? The fox in deciding the grapes are probably sour,
decided to dislike what he
Hi Ham,
Thanks for your educational post. I will do my best to respond intelligently.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Mark --
On Tues, Apr 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Free will can be considered a personal choice,
Hi Joe,
I prefer the notion that evolution follows free will. I have a
problem with placing things under the theories of evolution. Quality
does not evolve, since such a concept makes Quality subservient to
evolution; as if Quality has to follow certain rules. Quality begets
evolution.
Ron to Andre:
First, if we are pragmatists, then indeed all experience rests on a static
point of view and that
leads the conversation to meaning. I argue that DQ must have meaning to be
useful.
Andre:
Agreed Ron. That's why Pirsig has argued that everybody knows what quality is,
even a
When I took a class called Free Will and Determinism some years ago, we began
with Aristotle's discussion of fatalism (something about a ship). Ancient
Greek tragedy defined the notion of tragic by outlining clashes between
compulsions of the sort we call fate, which Aristotle then made a
Andre,
There might be many static betterments in comparison of various factors
when weighing two different options. And we often take the aggregate of
these static comparisons as indicators of which is the best of the two. But
still, we are only guessing. Often we guess with nebulous intuitive
[Steve]
You misunderstand.
Not really.
[Steve]
My point is that you can't choose to prefer
something you don't already prefer.
That point did not appear until now, but let's consider it.
We all have preferences. I prefer ski area X. Then I try a new ski area Y.
Before I didn't consider
Craig,
That point did not appear until now, but let's consider it.
We all have preferences. I prefer ski area X. Then I try a new ski area Y.
Before I didn't consider scenery important, but Y is so beautiful that
I now prefer Y to X. That's my choice--it wasn't already a preference.
[Craig, previously]
I prefer ski area X. Then I try a new ski area Y.
Before I didn't consider scenery important, but Y is so beautiful that
I now prefer Y to X. That's my choice--it wasn't already a preference.
[Steve]
Please demonstrate your free will by willing a change in some such
Hi dmb,
From my readings of pre-modern Gods, like those who the Sumerians
wrote about, there was no sense that God's decided humans fate. In
fact there are tales in both Greek and Norse mythology that humans did
battle against the Gods, because they did not like the interference.
The notion that
Hi Mark,
Free will follows evolution. I see evolution as levels in existence. Free
will indicates that existence is not individuated, and not indeterminate.
That is why I see reality in levels in existence, evolution.
Joe
On 4/18/11 11:06 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Free will
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
Dan:
Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in
other words, a metaphysics of substance, as RMP explains in LILA. Here
are a couple quotes:
Phaedrus thought this was why no one before had ever seemed to have
come up
Dan:
So you believe there are many MOQs?
Ron:
SOM is a MOQ , because it's value all the way down, and experience is reality
then it stands to reason that there are indeed many,the gallery of paintings
metaphor comes to mind.
Dan:
Oh no, absolutely not. The metaphysics of substance
If the belief in free will is abandoned, morality must seemingly also be
abandoned.
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/
Ron:
You then led me to the understanding that where MoQ points to is
Dynamic Quality which you also link with the idea of freedom from choice.
And you claimed that these are not your own contentions that they are indeed
THE MoQ's.
Dan:
Need I quote LILA again?
To the extent that one's
This weekends MD had a high quality and I just want to thank all
contributors for good and amusing reading.
The mail from Marilyn Davenport woke me up this morning and reminded me
about that this is still a serious matter for many people.
The difference between social and intellectual values
Dan said:
... I am guessing all the major religions use the notions of free will and
determinism to explain the problem of good vs evil. That would seem to point to
previous religious ideas far older than our modern ones, from which they are
all descended.
dmb says:
I think that's right. It
[Dan]
it seems best to say that Dynamic Quality is not
this, not that, to keep it concept-free. Otherwise, it becomes just
another intellectual quality pattern (which it is, of course).
Quite wrong. DQ is not an intellectual quality pattern (nor any
other static PoV.} (See Pirsig SODV)
Craig
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:40 AM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Dan]
it seems best to say that Dynamic Quality is not
this, not that, to keep it concept-free. Otherwise, it becomes just
another intellectual quality pattern (which it is, of course).
Quite wrong. DQ is not an
Hello everyone
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Dan,
I think we get to the root of the disagreeement here so I just cut
the other stuff for now, but..lets to it.
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
Dan:
Natural selection is at work on
[Dan]
You're mistaking the moon for the finger pointing to it.
Anything we discuss is intellectual static quality, including Dynamic
Quality.
You've got the right locution, but the wrong interpretation of it.
On the one side, we have the discussion (the finger pointing or
tongue wagging) on
Hi Craig,
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Dan]
You're mistaking the moon for the finger pointing to it.
Anything we discuss is intellectual static quality, including Dynamic
Quality.
You've got the right locution, but the wrong interpretation of it.
On the
His all,
Where did this question of free will versus determinism originate in
the history of philosophy? I've been thinking of free will as a
Christian theology extra-added ingredient to each human animal that
is used to explain the problem of evil (unsatisfactorily). Theologians
needed this term
[Steve]
As long as you think that there is an it that can be pointed to, you
are referring to Dynamic Quality
Yes, if you adhere to the MoQ, you must refer to DQ.
[Steve]
you
are referring to Dynamic Quality as an intellectual pattern of value
(or possibly some other sort).
Quite wrong. DQ
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:31 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
As long as you think that there is an it that can be pointed to, you
are referring to Dynamic Quality
Craig:
Yes, if you adhere to the MoQ, you must refer to DQ.
Dan:
But Craig, the Dynamic Quality we are
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
His all,
Where did this question of free will versus determinism originate in
the history of philosophy? I've been thinking of free will as a
Christian theology extra-added ingredient to each
Dan and the free will defenders --
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com.net
wrote:
The term freedom has several meanings. To avoid confusion,
I think the best definition to use in this circumstance is...
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
[Dan]
the Dynamic Quality we are discussing is not Dynamic Quality.
Where is Platt when we need him? He was particularly good at exposing such
self-defeating
psuedo-philosophy as: Nothing exists, There is no truth or DQ is not DQ.
[Dan]
Do you see what we are saying now?
Alas, yes.
Hello everyone
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:04 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Dan]
the Dynamic Quality we are discussing is not Dynamic Quality.
Craig:
Where is Platt when we need him? He was particularly good at exposing such
self-defeating
psuedo-philosophy as: Nothing exists, There is
Ron:
we have inorganic needs, biological needs, social needs and intellectual needs
whats best is whats best for all levels, to harmonize goods.
I think if the intellect is concerned with whats best for the environment
biological health and fellow human beings it is aligned with betterness.
Dan and the free will defenders --
[Sorry, the previous uncompleted message got away from me.]
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com.net
wrote:
The term freedom has several meanings. To avoid confusion,
I think the best definition to use in this circumstance
[Dan]
...Dynamic Quality. I am saying
the term we use for it is not it.
Exactly. That's why even though the TERM we use for it is an intellectual
static pattern,
DQ itself is not. There aren't 2 DQs: one an an intellectual static pattern
the other
dynamic unpatterned. DQ is only the
[Dan]
No one is forced to experience Dynamic reality.
However, everyone is forced to follow static quality patterns that make up
our every day
conventional reality.
[Ham]
Your explanation seems to reverse my analysis. You say we are free to
follow DQ because
it is synonymous with
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
undefined betterness is natural selection
on every level.
Dan:
Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in
other words, a metaphysics of substance, as RMP explains in LILA. Here
are a couple quotes:
Phaedrus thought
Hi Dan --
Thanks for responding so graciously to what to you must seem a radical
epistemology.
Normally I let these controversies run their natural course--and this has
been a long one. But Individual freedom is of vital importance to me, not
(as Andre insinuates) because I'm an
On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
Dan:
Thankfully, Marsha and Joe seem to get what I am
saying.
Hi Dan,
Other than how we understand the fourth level, I would say I
agree with you most of the time And agreeing with you is a
good experience. :-)
Marsha
___
On 4/15/11 1:06 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
I have been following this thread with increasing frustration, as it
confirms my suspicion that neither Mr. Pirsig nor the MoQists can justify
Free Will in a reality controlled by Quality. As a consequence, they've
concluded that
Ham:
Subject to these conditions, why should the issue of moral values even
arise, let alone be endlessly debated in a philosophy forum?
Dan:
Well, Ham, it certainly has opened up a hornets' nest. I am a bit
frustrated myself that some of us have such trouble seeing what it is
that the MOQ
Ham:
Subject to these conditions, why should the issue of moral values even
arise, let alone be endlessly debated in a philosophy forum?
Ron:
Because Ham, Philosophy is nothing but exploring moral values.
MoQ followed out to it's conclusion is that everyone has a moral responsibity
to
Ron to Ham and Dan:
The counter argument I make
1: Choice is reality, every last bit
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as betterness
Andre:
Ron, are you just saying this to counter the argument or is this your idea
about DQ?
I really think
Hi Andre,
I am not sure if a Zen Buddhist would laugh at this. I would phrase
the counter argument a little bit differently, but with what I think
is the same intention.
1. Choice is a component of our reality
2. Natural selection at work is an expression of dynamic quality.
3. There is a
Ron to Ham and Dan:
The counter argument I make
1: Choice is reality, every last bit
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as betterness
Andre:
Ron, are you just saying this to counter the argument or is this your idea
about
DQ?
I really
Hello everyone
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ham:
Subject to these conditions, why should the issue of moral values even
arise, let alone be endlessly debated in a philosophy forum?
Dan:
Well, Ham, it certainly has opened up a hornets' nest. I am a
Andre:
WE are not free from a Quality point of view. We equate freedom with choice.
Oh, wonderful! But it is STATIC choices we are referring to when we decide to
buy this or that bread, or drink this or that malt whiskey. Or go here or there
on this particular holiday. These are simply
Hello everyone
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Dan --
Thanks for responding so graciously to what to you must seem a radical
epistemology.
Hi Ham
You're welcome, and thank you too.
Ham:
Normally I let these controversies run their natural
Dan,
I think we get to the root of the disagreeement here so I just cut
the other stuff for now, but..lets to it.
Ron:
2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work
Dan:
Natural selection is at work on the biological level, yes.
Ron:
Why not the other levels? undefined betterness is
Dan, Ron, John and All --
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan, you had stated to John
I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom.
Conventionally, that is so. But we are not talking conventionally
here. We are using the framework
Hello Ham,
I think the key is awareness. If one is in the grips of static patterns one
is not awar and there is no choice. Awareness is not unpatterned
experience, but awareness, awareness of conceptual and nonverbal
experiences in the present. It, too, is a non-dualistic experience.
Hi Ham and all:
I don't think my credentials qualify me for an judgment of the evolutionary
process of an insentient universe. My logic is fairly primitive.
Joe
On 4/15/11 11:06 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
I don't know how this translates in MoQ terms, or whether a
The Essential Ham:
I don't know how this translates in MoQ terms, or whether a cognizant self made of quality patterns can even
be considered autonomous. I could care less whether Pirsig says or Dan
says something different. I do know, however, that unless man is an independent creature,
Hello everyone
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Dan, Ron, John and All --
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Hello Dan, you had stated to John
I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom.
Slightly artifical context (Berlin wall annivesary and collapse of
Soviet Union) but interesting survey ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi Ian,
Free markets are idealisations, like democracy: they are not substantiated.
Marx suggests that any form of market intervention indicates a malfunction of
the capitalist system.
The arms industry is an example of that - the cold war kept capitalism
teatering along for a good spell.
All
HAPPY 20th ANNIVERSARY -- FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL
Here's an interesting survey regarding the switch from communism to democracy.
Only Ukraine was against. I thought they welcomed the Orange Revolution.
Here's an article for the Social Level to digest.
Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an
internal report by the Department of Homeland
Security warning that current conditions resemble
those in the early 1990s a time marked by an
upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in
: John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:03:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Interesting right now with a holocaust denier so much in the news...
What it has led me to wonder is the proper role of ostracism. If we deny
the hater his speech
.
From: John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:03:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Interesting right now with a holocaust denier so much in the news...
What it has led me to wonder is the proper role of ostracism. If we deny
or a hinderance.
-Ron
From: MarshaV marsh...@charter.net
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:47:22 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Hi Ron,
And isn't this the problem of many types patterns. So running on
automatic are these patterns
From: MarshaV marsh...@charter.net
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:47:22 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Hi Ron,
And isn't this the problem of many types patterns. So running on
automatic are these patterns that a fresh evaluation
are not aware of it.
An ability
undisciplined, unrecognized and misunderstood in our culture.
From: John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:03:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Interesting right
undisciplined, unrecognized and misunderstood in our culture.
From: John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:03:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free speech
Interesting right now with a holocaust denier so much
Okay by me, but I cannot guarantee it will stick. Free speech is
better than mob rule...
At 01:53 PM 6/11/2009, you wrote:
What do you say we change the thread to free speech
From: MarshaV marsh...@charter.net
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent:
Ron:
PC, as far as I know, is a social standard for politeness in public nothing
more.
Hate speech in public places is alive and well, . As far as I
know Platt all you need is a permit provided one is granted, otherwise
you'll probably get fined for loitering and disturbing the peace if you don't
501 - 600 of 606 matches
Mail list logo
