[MD] Free Will

[Ian Glendinning]

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 and meta-philosophy, language and
meta-language, with meta-meta-whatever .... forever. Craig, please
notice the "it" in your first clause and the "itself" in your second.
You are already denoting concepts with (these) terms, before even
discussing the terms we might use to denote them. You already have
these "it"s conceptualized before we start.

You're both right (or wrong, if you prefer), but Dan is better,
because he focusses on what is best.
The question is what do you prefer, (what you would will) - arguments
about linguistic right and wrong, or living ethical goodness and
badness ?

The free-will argument, and Pirsig's ironical focus on "definitions"
in the church of reason are more of the same. At some point you have
to stop defining right and wrong, freedom and determinism, language
and DQ, and start doing - for better or worse, as they say.  Choosing
to point out linguistic flaws in someone else's (lingusitic) argument
is one choice of exercising free-will. Another is to know the person
and get on with it. Which is why Steve is reduced to calling Craig a
"dick".

Ian
PS
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding ?
Now, logic, definitions and understanding, ... now that is funny.