Apologies to list members for the sad antics of this ex-member - whose
real name escapes me for the moment! Mark Maxwell I think.
Unfortunately, those that are pathetic enough and have too much time on
their hands can make up names and use them to create accounts to access
this list.
I will
Michael (whoever you are) said
Almost every discussion of Pirsig, the totality of his thought, and the MOQ
(all three of which are separate) that I've seen eventually resemble the
Church of Reason intellectualizing criticized so adeptly in ZAMM.
I agree, and in fact I believe I've pointed out
Dan responded to Steve:
[Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free will versus determinism
gets replaced
by the question, to what extent do we follow DQ and to what extent do
we follow sq?
[Dan] It appears from reading this that these are two mutually exclusive
options, hence my observation
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:05 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Dan responded to Steve:
[Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free will versus determinism
gets replaced
by the question, to what extent do we follow DQ and to what extent do
we follow sq?
[Dan] It appears from reading this that
Not sure
I agree Free-Will vs Determinism is a Pirsigian platypus, when looking
to make objective definitions and distinctions - the point of calling
it a platypus, (which has been thoroughly resolved by evolutionary
philosophers).
And, the DQ/sq distinction is fundamental to MoQ.
Not sure one
Oh and by the way,
well done again for turning the subject immediately away from the
point I did make.
Ian
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:05 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Dan responded to Steve:
[Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free
Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
Steve said
It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values.
This is the kind of SOMis intellectual argument that has turned me
Ian,
I'm sorry, your point was extremely important. This Church of Reason
has gotten pretty nasty. - I had been interpreting Steve as saying that
a strategy for becoming more dynamically aware was a better question
to be asking. It was on my mind. I wanted to hear your thoughts. I guess
Thanks Marsha,
If that is what Steve is saying, then I'm good with that. As you say,
let Steve speak.
(Arguing that point with those who are on the academic intellectual -
church of reason - trip is patently not a good strategy, unless your
objective is insanity. There but for the grace
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
Steve said
It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values.
I'd say
Out of curiosity Michael,
I went back into the current threads and this is what I said (to Matt)
just 3 weeks ago on 21st June.
And your (Nagel) point - the closer we look (analyze) the less actual
freedom (DQ) we have. Agreed I find it ironic that the more we
have academic arguments about
On Jul 11, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Thanks Marsha,
If that is what Steve is saying, then I'm good with that. As you say,
let Steve speak.
(Arguing that point with those who are on the academic intellectual -
church of reason - trip is patently not a good strategy, unless
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure
I agree Free-Will vs Determinism is a Pirsigian platypus, when looking
to make objective definitions and distinctions - the point of calling
it a platypus, (which has been thoroughly resolved by
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure
I agree Free-Will vs Determinism is a Pirsigian platypus, when looking
to make objective definitions and
Pirsig in Lila:
It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila. Nothing can have
Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to possess something is to
dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If there's domination and possession
involved, it's Quality that dominates and
Dan said to Steve:
.., I tend to agree with you that there is no need to equate morality and
causality. I addressed this to dmb but he didn't respond, at least not that I
noticed.
dmb says:
I don't know if anyone equated morality and causality. I've been saying the
traditional version of
Hi Dan,
Dan:
Within the framework of the MOQ, it is not an exclusive, either/or
proposition but rather both. From a static quality, conventional point
of view, both free will and determinism are seen as correct. From a
Dynamic point of view, both free will and determinism are illusions,
the
Hi dmb,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:35 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said to Steve:
.., I tend to agree with you that there is no need to equate morality and
causality. I addressed this to dmb but he didn't respond, at least not that I
noticed.
dmb says:
I don't
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Pirsig in Lila:
It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila. Nothing can
have Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to possess something
is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality.
Steven Peterson said on Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM:
No, really. The MOQ literally does not posit the existence of the reified
concept of a chooser, a Cartesian self, a watcher that stands behind the senses
and all valuation, the soul. The MOQ does not posit an extra-added ingredient
above
Hello everyone
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan responded to Steve:
[Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free will versus determinism
gets replaced
by the question, to what extent do we follow DQ and to what extent do
we follow sq?
dmb said to Steve:
You say we ARE our values and we are not free to choose those values. But then
you also say we are not determined by our values. These statements contradict
each other. Like I said, this looks like some kind of value-determinism wherein
the static patterns are the causal
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said to Steve:
.., I tend to agree with you that there is no need to equate morality and
causality. I addressed this to dmb but he didn't respond, at least not that I
noticed.
dmb says:
I don't know if
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan responded to Steve:
[Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free will versus determinism
gets replaced
by the
Hello everyone
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said to Steve:
.., I tend to agree with you that there is no need to equate morality and
causality. I addressed this to dmb but he didn't respond, at least not that I
noticed.
dmb says:
I
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb said to Steve:
You say we ARE our values and we are not free to choose those values. But
then you also say we are not determined by our values. These statements
contradict each other. Like I said, this looks
Dan:
But in a sense, in the classical dilemma, they are linked.
Steve:
Right. This is dennett's point as well. If actions didn't have predictable
results, freedom to choose would be pointless.
Dan comments:
The way I read this, the switch from causality to value does not
Hi dmb,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steven Peterson said on Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM:
No, really. The MOQ literally does not posit the existence of the reified
concept of a chooser, a Cartesian self, a watcher that stands behind the
Thnx!
Anyone that can't move on, on that sort of level
can't have much to contribute intellectually.
- Original Message
From: Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 3:37:38 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] What to leave in...
Apologies to list members
Steve:
If we ARE our values, It simply could not make sense to say we CHOOSE
our values anymore than it makes sense to say we are DETERMINED BY our
values. Where you see 2 mutually exclusive SOM based options, I see a
third option where if accepted denies that the other two even make
sense as
Steve:
I am doing my best to
help you understand the MOQ, but if you don't read carefully you will
continue to struggle to get a grip on what Pirsig is saying.
Ron:
I just despise this use of rhetorical strategy its infantile..
...If anything is meaningless its this tripe..
/
Moq_Discuss
Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self by Miri Albahari
This is one incredible book. Could never have imagined the patterns involved
in constructing a self...
Review
'This is an extraordinary book. It pursues Buddhist thought as a live
philosophy, not as an
32 matches
Mail list logo
