I like you.
André
--- jhmau <jhmau@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "André" <psytrancekid@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> André and All:
>
> I cried when Frodo volunteered to take the ring into
> Mordor at the Council
> of Elrond. I coundn't figure out where the tears
> came from nor why? I
> guess it was the strength of his offering. I can
> relate to Lawry's conflict
> of parts. I think that when I decide to do
> something it is already done. I
> want to say no-mind, no-will, no-how ['].
>
> Joe
>
> (André)
> I don't remember being asked if I wanted free will
> (if
> I in fact have it). I think free will is the red
> herring of all red herrings .. for various reasons.
> Without going into the reasons, yet, ... how about a
> quick "Free Will" poll. Where would you put your
> tick?
>
> I like the idea of Free Will, therefore it exists
> for
> me [ ]
>
> I don't like the idea of Free Will, therefore it
> does
> not exist for me. [ ]
>
> André
>
>
> --- Matt the Enraged Endorphin
> <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu> wrote: > John and all,
> >
> > I've been tinkering around with the same thinking
> > for a while. In all
> > three of my essays in the Forum, I offer the
> > cookey-cutter solution to the
> > free will/determinism problem that Pirsig offers.
> > Glenn Bradford sharpened
> > my growing dismay with this answer when he
> commented
> > on my third
> > capitulation in a private e-mail, "Far from
> > disolving this age-old dilemma,
> > all this does is rephrase the problem in MOQ
> terms:
> > now we must ask when
> > our behavior is controlled by static patterns and
> > when we are free to
> > follow Dynamic Quality." This got me to thinking.
> > I responded in
> > something to the effect that, "Well, the question
> is
> > changed simply because
> > the question is now 'When are we free and when
> > aren't we?" How can we tell
> > when we are being Dynamic and when we are being
> > static? That's one of the
> > toughest questions the MoQ faces. As far as I can
> > tell, its fairly easy to
> > describe and redescribe an event in either terms
> > which poses a problem for
> > the ethics of the MoQ.
> >
> > What moved me beyond this point was a class that
> > touched on Kant's ethics
> > and some thinking I had been doing on
> consciousness
> > in the MoQ. First,
> > consciousness. Once again, Glenn sharpened my
> > thinking (in that same
> > e-mail): "It is true that saying "B values
> > pre-condition A" is equivalent,
> > insofar as the data reveals, to "A causes B". The
> > question really boils
> > down to how compelling this alternative is when
> you
> > are talking about atoms
> > and such. Having preferences require some
> semblance
> > of consciousness, and
> > from what we know about unquestioned examples of
> > consciousness, you need
> > brains. Atoms don't have brains." He's absolutely
> > right. Except that I
> > don't think brains are required for consciousness.
> > We simply infer that
> > from the one source of consciousness we are "proof
> > positive" of: our own.
> > But inferences aren't very persuasive with only
> one
> > piece of evidence (this
> > is essentially a Sartrean treatment of
> > consciousness).
> >
> > What happens in the MoQ is that the locus of
> > consciousness is placed in
> > every particular thing that can be identified as
> > valuing something else.
> > Which means that atoms are conscious (insofar as
> > they value one thing over
> > another). What this also means is that this locus
> > of consciousness is also
> > the locus of free will. It makes a choice between
> A
> > and B. So, free will
> > and consciousness are located at the very root of
> > Quality. Without them,
> > Quality wouldn't make sense.
> >
> > I mentioned Kant earlier in relation to this
> > treatment of the MoQ. Kant
> > posited free will for the purposes of morality.
> > Kant argued that without
> > free will there could be no ethical or moral
> > judgements. So he posited it
> > in the realm of noumena, the undefined "real
> world"
> > that sits opposite the
> > realm of phenomena. What I read Pirsig as doing
> in
> > his spelling out of
> > Quality is a hyper-Kantian positing of free will
> for
> > the purposes of
> > morality. Instead of placing consciousness and
> free
> > will in humans, Pirsig
> > places them in the very fabric of reality.
> Quality
> > is undefined. It is
> > the "real world." It is also where the values for
> > ethics and morality
> > exist. Once again, this narrative has Pirsig
> > following Kant's path.
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST