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,
p.s.
I also thought that your conflating a second-hand opinion concerning young
James's debilitating depression and feeling of helplessness with a mature
discourse on freewill versus determinism was ridiculous.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, MarshaV wrote:
Dmb,
Since I did
Marsha said to dmb:
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.
dmb says:
Weasel is just the casual, slang version of the complaint I explained at
dmb,
If you say I am a weasel, it must be so.
Marsha
On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:50 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said to dmb:
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
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 existence hinges on autonomous value-sensibility. It makes no
For anyone who's genuinely interested in a Jamesian analysis of free will...
...The pragmatic method includes directives for validating a belief, whereas
the principle of pure experience includes directives for formulating the belief
in experiential terms...He [James] calls on the principle of
Charlene wrote:
...The pragmatic method includes directives for validating a belief, whereas
the principle of pure experience includes directives for formulating the belief
in experiential terms...He [James] calls on the principle of pure experience,
for instance, to demonstrate that if
On Monday, June 26, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net
wrote:
Hi Ham and all,
Pirsig proposes a metaphysics of DQ/SQ. DQ is indefinable not
unknowable. The independent agent is DQ/SQ. There is something
in our actions that enable the indefinable. Free will enables action
Hi Marsha
27 jun 2011 kl. 18.44 sMarsha wrote:
Not to be repeating myself, I neither accept the notion of freewill, nor
reject it. Same goes with determinism and causation. I accept that these
are conventional (static) notions, but not Ultimately real. While living
within a
16 matches
Mail list logo
