[MD] Free Will

[Steven Peterson]

dmb,

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  dmb twice said to Steve:
> Like I said, we simply cannot have an intelligent conversation on this topic unless and until you learn to use the terms properly. Until then your statements will continue to be nonsensical and so talking to you is quite pointless..

Steve:
And yet you keep doing it.


> Steve replied:
> I don't disagree with Pirsig or the dictionary as far as the "classic dilemma." I disagree with how YOU think this dilemma could possibly still come up in the MOQ while Pirsig specifically says this dilemma does not come up in the MOQ!
>
>
> dmb says:
> See, now that's exactly the kind of thing you do over and over again. There is no way that an honest person could say what you just said. I have been explaining WHY the classic dilemma DOESN"T come up in the MOQ.


Steve:
Yes, but we mean different things when we say it doesn't come up. You
are saying it comes up but isn't a dilemma. I and saying it doesn't
come up at all. The dilemma isn't settled by finding some middle
ground, it is completely dissolved. It is rejected as being based on
SOM premises that are not assumed in the MOQ.



dmb:
> I do not understand why you cannot see what is so plain. You don't even understand your own stated position, let alone Pirsig's or mine or James's. If this isn't a matter of old-fashioned dishonesty or malicious bullshit, then you are a remarkably stupid man. In either case, your nonsense is just too frustrating to bear.

Steve:
Obviously I see things quite differently. It seems to me that if you
don't understand how Pirsig handles such questions as "is the Quality
in the subject or the object?" or "does Lila have quality?" and how
his responses to these questions apply to this classic Platypus, then
you really don't have much of a grip on the MOQ, but I would really
like to help you.