[MD] Free Will

[118]

Hi Joe,
My interpretation of your post below based on your definitions:

Mark

On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 6/20/11 12:08 PM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Matt said:
>> The trouble with Pirsig's metaphysical strategy, in specific relationship
>> to the multifarious free will debate, is that his explanatory strategy is
>> to treat Value as a primitive: you treat it as the only given, and explain
>> everything else from that first step.  That strategy is very successful on
>> a number of fronts, but not in explaining what value is, or how it works.
>> How could it?  You've already been asked to cede its equipment as a
>> given for explaining everything else.  This is why Quality can remain,
>> explanatorily speaking, undefined.
> <snip>
> 
> Hi Matt and all,
> 
> In trying to arrive at the primitive concept, I suggest that "existence" has
> more explicative possibilities for evolution than "value".  Value has the
> baggage of identity, hence is subject to intellectual logic.  In emotional
> parlance value is a defined non starter.  Existence on the other hand is
> open to everything knowable, even evolution.  DQ comes in the flavors of
> evolution in existence.
> 
Mark:
Existence explains the segmentation into levels.  Value carries identity with it.  In DQ parlance, Value is defined as a nonstarter because of identity.  Existence is open to the appearance of levels.  Emotions come in the flavors 
> A quibble about words.
> 
> Joe  
> 
> 
> 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/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html