Hi dmb,
Steve said:
That no one thinks of a bird's defiance of gravity (a biological pattern
trumping an inorganic pattern) as an example of free will is exactly my
point. It is the analogy I am drawing to call into question why we would
think of a social pattern trumping a biological
Hi Ham,
Steve:
I actually want to like tea, especially iced tea since it is so often
offered this time of year, but I just don't. That wouldn't even be
a problem if I could just will myself not to want to want to like
iced tea which I can't do even if I want to want to want to like
iced
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
dmb to Steve:
Also, why does the question of free will have to be framed around an
independent agent. In what sense is such agency independent? Why can't the
issue be framed as agency within the whole range and
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
... The MOQ says DQ is the quality of freedom ... Without DQ nothing could
grow or change... DQ degenerates into chaos. Without DQ, static quality
would fossilize or die of old age.
Marsha asks:
So is the DQ that dmb is
Steve to Andre:
Please try to keep it down, Andre. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
Andre:
Point taken Steve.
If preference and determinism are on the same continuum, this implies that
freedom is also on a continuum from little (or none) at the inorganic static quality
level...to
dmb said:
... The MOQ says DQ is the quality of freedom ... Without DQ nothing could grow
or change... DQ degenerates into chaos. Without DQ, static quality would
fossilize or die of old age.
Marsha snarked:
So is the DQ that dmb is defining about DQ or is it non-DQ?
dmb says:
I've
START program.
A: Do you feel compelled to push the right-hand button?
IF Yes, GOTO C.
B: Do you feel compelled to push the left-hand button?
IF Yes, GOTO D.
C: Do you feel compelled to Stop?
IF Yes, GOTO B.
PUSH the left-hand button.
GOTO E.
D: Do you feel compelled to Stop?
IF Yes, GOTO A.
PUSH
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:53 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb said:
... The MOQ says DQ is the quality of freedom ... Without DQ nothing could
grow or change... DQ degenerates into chaos. Without DQ, static quality
would fossilize or die of old age.
Marsha snarked:
So is the DQ that
dmb,
I'm sure you think your paraphrasing is always correct, but it is mentally
constructed from your own biases. And thergrouping together of your
paraphrased comments out of context make them sound like attributes of DQ.
And please don't miss explaining your quote: DQ degenerates into
Hi Matt and all,
Metaphysics is binding. Physics is open to discussion. I like Pirsig's
take on DQ, binding and undefined. MOQ suggests an explanation that: You
have to bind yourself before you can be free.
Joe
On 6/15/11 5:46 PM, Matt Kundert pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
In the
On 6/16/11 7:00 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Steve and all,
If something remains indefinable, there is a freedom in choosing it.
Organic, inorganic, social, intellectual are supposedly metaphysical terms.
I dislike social and substitute emotional (indefinable) as the
I suppose a more MoQish way of saying this is that your paraphrasing is
constructed from your patterns.
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:27 PM, MarshaV wrote:
dmb,
I'm sure you think your paraphrasing is always correct, but it is mentally
constructed from your own biases. And the grouping
On 6/16/11 7:11 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Man
wills things but saying that not only does he have will but that this
will is also free doesn't seem to mean anything.
snip
In DQ/SQ metaphysics something remains indefinable in everything. You are
free in willing
Joe,
What do you mean by undefinable?
Mark
On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
On 6/16/11 7:11 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Man
wills things but saying that not only does he have will but that this
will is also free doesn't
[Steve]
You are not free to value smoking over your
health if you actually value your health more than smoking.
Yes you can, it's called changing your mind.
Also you are free to choose short-term pleasures (smoking) over
long-term interests (health), even if you value the latter over the
Marsha said to dmb:
I'm sure you think your paraphrasing is always correct, but it is mentally
constructed from your own biases. And thergrouping together of your
paraphrased comments out of context make them sound like attributes of DQ. And
please don't miss explaining your quote: DQ
Hi Mark,
In MOQ metaphysics DQ is indefinable. This appeals to evolution, levels in
existence, for an answer, since emotions cannot be defined. Not so essence
in SOM. To argue that we cannot know the indefinable leaves you hanging
from the SOM tree of mathematical logic. 1 has two definitions
Steve --
You didn't will yourself to not want to smoke which was
what was required in the example I gave. Your value of
smoking can be trumped by your value of personal health
if you happen to value one over the other, but you can't
will yourself to value one over the other. Either you do or
Hi Craig,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:50 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve] This is sufficient for will, but what are you adding when you
attach the word free?
Craig:
So: what is the difference between exercising your will exercising
your free will? When an amoeba backs away from
Hi Ham,
Steve --
How is the preference in intellectual preferences different
in kind from biological preferences? I can't simply decide
by force of will to prefer 2+2=5 over 2+2=4 any more than
I can will myself not to bleed when stabbed through the heart.
Ham:
I'm not distinguishing
Steve said to dmb:
... Also, you keep putting up some radical determinism as the only alternative
to belief in a radically internal entity called the will. To deny free will
is only to deny the existence of this entity. It is not to say that everything
is already determined. Most things could
Hi dmb,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:36 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
... Also, you keep putting up some radical determinism as the only
alternative to belief in a radically internal entity called the will. To
deny free will is only to deny the existence
Steve said to dmb:
Resisting impulses and desires usually translates in MOQ terms as social
and/or intellectual patterns sometimes trump biological patterns under certain
circumstances. But there is no more freedom in such situations understood as
the product of the freedom of an independent
[Steve]
Humans have freedom to choose because they can deliberate and
deliberation is free because it is the basis of choice? This is
circular.
Sure is. Eliminate deliberation is free because it is the basis of choice
to bust out of the circle.
[Steve]
isn't the burden of proof always on
Hi dmb,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:37 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
Resisting impulses and desires usually translates in MOQ terms as social
and/or intellectual patterns sometimes trump biological patterns under
certain circumstances. But there is no
Hi Craig,
[Steve]
isn't the burden of proof always on anyone who wants to
convince another of something? We share that burden equally.
Craig:
No no.
Craig:
I don't see your folding of arms and leaning back in your chair as you
claim that the burden of proof is on me is any different from
dmb to Steve:
Also, why does the question of free will have to be framed around an
independent agent. In what sense is such agency independent? Why can't the
issue be framed as agency within the whole range and context of static patterns?
Andre:
This is what disturbs me about this incessant
Hi again, Steve --
In the MOQ, every response is a valuistic one, but, whatever.
Ham:
Do you prefer coffee or tea? Do you like pop music or
the classics? Are you more attracted to blondes or brunettes?
Do you support liberal or conservative candidates?
THESE are preferences, Steve. They are
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
Okay, now we're talking about the same thing.
But I don't think free will is bunk so much as the metaphysical entity behind
it. Same with the notion that reality itself is a series of causes and
effects. That's very
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
Okay, now we're talking about the same thing.
dmb:
But I don't think free will is bunk so much as the metaphysical entity behind
it.
Marsha:
What metaphysical entity woud that be?
dmb:
Same with the notion that reality
[Steve]
you are out of arguments
It's okay if I am out of arguments. I only ever needed one.
[Steve]
The question is whether or not this willing we feel is meaningfully free. You
haven't even made sense of what that could even mean
I suppose it is like being red-green color blind. The
Hi Steve,
Steve said:
What is your personal view on the matter of free will?
Matt:
My personal, fairly unphilosophical view is that it doesn't pay much to
think about free will vs. determinism as a problem. In other words,
I don't think about it much and I'm encouraged in that view by how
PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Hi Steve,
Steve said:
What is your personal view on the matter of free will?
Matt:
My personal, fairly unphilosophical view is that it doesn't pay much to
think about free will vs. determinism as a problem. In other words,
I don't think about it much and I'm
Hi Craig,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:17 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Craig, previously]
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game. The game consists of 2
boxes 2 buttons.
He puts the same amount of money--either $0 or $1000--in each of the 2
boxes. If you push the right-hand
Hi Ham,
Steve:
Do you see this power to choose as the possession of man
but not other animals?
Ham:
Yes I do, Steve. I suppose a case can be made for intentional behavior on
the part of highly developed cerebrates. However, my personal view is that
animal preferences are largely
Hi dmb,
dmb says:
Are you telling me that Harris and/or philosophers take psychological and
historical factors cause our decisions in some law-like way, that they
determine our will? That hardly seems plausible. Wouldn't one have to
subscribe to worst kind of scientism and reductionism
Hi Matt,
About an hour before getting your post I experienced a felt intention
to write to you to see what you thought about all this, so I was glad
to see this:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
Playing the causation game doesn't
Hi Ron,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
It is, again, the capacity for choice that makes us accountable for
our own actions and states. Epictetus is particularly fond of
exploring the implications of this essentially Stoic conception.
In studying his usage
[Steve] This is sufficient for will, but what are you adding when you
attach the word free?
So: what is the difference between exercising your will exercising
your free will? When an amoeba backs away from acid or a philadendron
turns toward the sun, it is exercising its will, but it is not
Steve --
On Tuesday, 6/14/11, 7:37 AM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ham,
How is the preference in intellectual preferences different
in kind from biological preferences? I can't simply decide
by force of will to prefer 2+2=5 over 2+2=4 any more than
I can will myself
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:30 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game.The game consists of 2 boxes
2 buttons. He puts the same amount of money--either
$0 or $1000--in each of the 2 boxes. If you push the right-hand button you
get themoney in the
Hi DMB,
Steve said:
It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably can't even
mean anything. What does it mean to say that not only are you capable of
acting out your will but that on top of that your will is free? Free of what?
dmb says:
I don't get it. How is free
Hi Ham,
Ham:
Free will is the power to choose. It is unintelligible only for
determinists who believe that human actions, like all evolutionary events,
are the consequence of prior causes.
This would be true if human beings were controlled by their beingness,
enslaved by their genetic
[Craig, previously]
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game. The game consists of 2
boxes 2 buttons.
He puts the same amount of money--either $0 or $1000--in each of the 2
boxes. If you push the right-hand button you get the
money in the right hand box. If you push the left-hand
Hi Steve --
On Monday, 6/13/11, 10:02 AM Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ham,
Ham:
Free will is the power to choose. It is unintelligible only for
determinists who believe that human actions, like all
evolutionary events, are the consequence of prior causes.
This would be
Steve said:
Free will is not generally understood to be the ability to act on one's will.
Any animal can do that. Free will goes a step further than that to propose an
extra-added ingredient that humans posses and animals do not. It says that the
will is not determined by anything other than
Steve said:
Playing the causation game doesn't depend on any particular
metaphysics. But once you start looking for explanations in terms of
causes, the serpent of causation is found to run over everything.
Matt:
That's a good way of putting it. One of the most powerful, succinct
statements
Steve said:
Playing the causation game doesn't depend on any particular
metaphysics. But once you start looking for explanations in terms of
causes, the serpent of causation is found to run over everything.
Matt:
That's a good way of putting it. One of the most powerful, succinct
statements
It is, again, the capacity for choice that makes us accountable for
our own actions and states. Epictetus is particularly fond of
exploring the implications of this essentially Stoic conception.
In studying his usage it is helpful to remember that his favored
term prohairesis refers more often
Hello David, Steve, Dan, and All --
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:42 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Steve said:
It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably
can't even mean anything. What does it mean to say that not
only are you capable of acting out
Craig said
... the TERM we use for it is an intellectual static pattern, DQ
itself is not.
Dan had spent time on fingers and moons (again). But Dan had actually
started in the quote Craig chose, with what is best.
Craig's argument goes on forever in levels of reality and
meta-reality, philosophy
On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
The singularity I allude to here is that man is created as a 'being-aware',
an entity that stands apart from his Creator. As a free agent of the
Absolute Source, man has an autonomy that transcends the laws of biological
survival in the
Dan:
Fourth, I think the MOQ would say that the higher levels do offer a
more expanded set of options from which to choose. But it doesn't
necessarily follow that we are free, unless we follow Dynamic Quality,
which is free of any patterns.
Ron:
Having the choice to follow DQ is freedom. So
Dear Marsha--
Greetings Ham,
My difficulty accepting your autonomy is that in the state
of awareness there is no 'I' or objects. The self and other
are patterns that are applied later.
Which is why I ignored your protracted discussion on reification. How can
the self be patterned after
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game.The game consists of 2 boxes
2 buttons. He puts the same amount of money--either
$0 or $1000--in each of the 2 boxes. If you push the right-hand button you get
themoney in the right hand box. If you push the left-hand button you get the
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:30 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game.The game consists of 2 boxes
2 buttons. He puts the same amount of money--either
$0 or $1000--in each of the 2 boxes. If you push the right-hand button you
get
[Craig, previously]
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game. The game consists of 2
boxes 2 buttons.
He puts the same amount of money--either $0 or $1000--in each of the 2
boxes. If you push the right-hand button you get the
money in the right hand box. If you push the left-hand
Hello everyone
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Craig, previously]
An eccentric magician invites you to play a game. The game consists of 2
boxes 2 buttons.
He puts the same amount of money--either $0 or $1000--in each of the 2
boxes. If you push the
Hello Ham,
To address my initial statement: In my experience, when in the state of
awareness, there is an absence of self and other. These patterns come when
awareness is dropped.
On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
Dear Marsha--
Greetings Ham,
My difficulty
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Great topic Steve,
I think Harris is drawing his conclusions based apon the application
of the basic general primary explanation of the good, the act of preference
to defend the notion that freewill is not present because
Steve said:
It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably can't even
mean anything. What does it mean to say that not only are you capable of acting
out your will but that on top of that your will is free? Free of what?
dmb says:
I don't get it. How is free will different
Hello everyone
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:42 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably can't even
mean anything. What does it mean to say that not only are you capable of
acting out your will but that on
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:33 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Einstein] Man can do what he will but he cannot will
what he wills).
If it is true that woman/man can do what s/he will,
this is sufficient for free will. Craig
This is sufficient for will, but what are you adding when you
Great topic Steve,
I think Harris is drawing his conclusions based apon the application
of the basic general primary explanation of the good, the act of preference
to defend the notion that freewill is not present because we are composed
of various levels of prejudical choices.
It seems illogical
Hi Ron,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Great topic Steve,
I think Harris is drawing his conclusions based apon the application
of the basic general primary explanation of the good, the act of preference
to defend the notion that freewill is not present
Hi Ron --
After complimenting Steve on resurrecting this topic, you said:
I think Harris is drawing his conclusions based apon the
application of the basic general primary explanation of the
good, the act of preference to defend the notion that freewill
is not present because we are composed
Hi Ham and All,
Pirsig correctly saw that subjective individuality is indefinable DQ. Why
isn't Absolute Value indefinable DQ. If it were DQ that certainly explains
why we see through a glass darkly when discussing reality.
Joe
On 6/10/11 1:04 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Harris]
the concept of free will is a non- starter, both philosophically and
scientifically. thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring
into view—and move us,
or fail to move us, for reasons that are,
Sam Harris is still going on about free will. I guess he can't control himself:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
[Craig, previously]
Suppose I find a wallet with ID. I might keep it. But as I deliberate, I
feel guilty decide to return the wallet. Then I rationalize: the
owner was careless, why should I do them any favors?
[Steve] You aren't reading carefully. What
Harris says is inscrutible
Craig:
Harris is at a tremendous disadvantage in this debate. He must argue
that of all the billions of people who have ever lived on earth, none
of them at any time in their life, exercised free will. I only have
to argue that there was one case.
Steve:
No, examples and counter-examples won't
[Einstein] Man can do what he will but he cannot will
what he wills).
If it is true that woman/man can do what s/he will,
this is sufficient for free will. Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
[Harris]
the concept of free will is a non- starter, both philosophically and
scientifically. thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring
into view—and move us,
or fail to move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective point of view,
perfectly inscrutable.
Suppose I find
Hello everyone
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:01 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Harris]
the concept of free will is a non- starter, both philosophically and
scientifically. thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring
into view—and move us,
or fail to move us, for reasons that
[Craig, previously]
Suppose I find a wallet with ID. I might keep it. But as I deliberate, I
feel guilty decide to return the wallet. Then I rationalize: the owner
was careless, why should I do them any favors?
there is no reason to suppose
that my decision is fore-ordained before I
Hi All,
Here is Sam Harris's recent blog post on morality without free will:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/morality-without-free-will/
Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi John --
Hello Ham, and greetings from Bozeman. I almost feel like I'm
on my own Hajj. Hopefully I'll have time to share more of my
experience later.
I explored Yellowstone in the last century with my parents, but never got to
Bozeman. It sounds like a
recreational paradise. Have you
Hi John,
On May 11, 2011, at 1:07 PM, John Carl wrote:
John:
I'm a skeptic too, Marsha. And that's why I was so attracted to Royce's
take on absolute skepticism - when we come down to questioning everything,
the one rock-solid foundation we find that we can use to build a Quality
Hello Ham, and greetings from Bozeman. I almost feel like I'm on my own
Hajj. Hopefully I'll have time to share more of my experience later.
Ham:
I know you don't agree with my cosmology. You don't accept my
epistemology that Value (Quality) doesn't exist in the absence of
awareness.
John:
I'm a skeptic too, Marsha. And that's why I was so attracted to Royce's
take on absolute skepticism - when we come down to questioning everything,
the one rock-solid foundation we find that we can use to build a Quality
metaphysics is the indisputable fact that error exists.
Marsha:
As a
Hi John,
On May 9, 2011, at 1:20 PM, John Carl wrote:
John:
What do you mean, Marsha? Don't you think cause exists at least in our own
heads?
Marsha:
As a skeptic it was because I didn't trust what went on in our heads that I
came to this list. What do we know and how do we
[Pirsig]
To say that A causes B or to say that B values
precondition A is to say the same thing.
[Craig, previously]
In precondition A (proximity of a magnet to iron filings) the
iron filings value B (movement of the iron filings toward
the magnet).
[Steve]
I knew you could figure it out.
Nagarjuna, in the MMK, replaces cause with conditions:
The argument against causation is tightly intertwined with the positive
account of dependent arising and of the nature of the relation between
conditions and the conditioned. Nagarjuna begins by stating the conclusion (1:
1): neither
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[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
Greeings,
Rather than a choice, is a pattern equivalent to a conclusion?
Marsha
___
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/
[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.
[Craig, previously]
In Iron filings
Well Ham,
your words thrill me and I agree with every word. You put it most
excellently as well. I just can't understand how anybody would choose to
not understand such plain and well-written rhetoric.
Yours,
John
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi
Marsha:
Rather than a choice, is a pattern equivalent to a conclusion?
Marsha:
The mind is fixated from moment to moment on static patterns (conclusions)
which shape reality and establish certainty so life can be lived with some
reliability.
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Marsha,
I never read Hume, but I did hand in an essay to my SDA english teacher my
sophmore year, on cause and effect, and he called it Humeian so I've
always had a certain fondness for the guy who woke father Kant from his
dogmatic slumbers. As you do for many! I'm sure.
Marsha:
Been a long
[Steve]
Instead of saying A magnet [A] causes iron filings to move
toward it [B], you can say Iron filings [B] value movement
toward a magnet [A].
But the use of A B is inconsistent between these two formulations.
A causes B is exemplified by A (proximity of a magnet to iron
filings)
Greetings John --
Well Ham,
your words thrill me and I agree with every word. You put it most
excellently as well. I just can't understand how anybody would
choose to not understand such plain and well-written rhetoric.
Thanks for the kind words. I had ro reread that post (to Marsha) to
Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 3:44:28 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Greetings,
I see it as conceptualization/language reifies whether it reifies, cause,
preference, A. B or I.
Marsha
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org
Craig,
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[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
Steve said to Dan:
Since the Cartesian self is denied, the free will is denied since there is no
autonomous agent to posses the faculty known as free will.
dmb says:
I'm not so sure it follows. Does the denial of the Cartesian self also entail
the denial of agency? It seems to me that freedom
Marsha:
In the MoQ, causation is replaced by preference, but it is still a pattern or
an explanatory extension of a pattern.
On May 8, 2011, at 10:52 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Steve said to Dan:
Since the Cartesian self is denied, the free will is denied since there is no
autonomous
Hello everyone
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
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
[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
Greetings,
I see it as conceptualization/language reifies whether it reifies, cause,
preference, A. B or I.
Marsha
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Or maybe state it more properly ---
Conceptualization/language reifies: cause, preference, A. B or I.
Marsha
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
I think to group reification with conceptualization is confusing the meaning of
both terms
leading to inaccuracies.
- Original Message
From: MarshaV val...@att.net
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 3:44:28 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Greetings,
I see
301 - 400 of 606 matches
Mail list logo
