[MD] Metaphysical Baggage

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:
...Look, Steve, this guy named Hugo said what you have been saying about "will" and "free will" and Pirsig shot him down. Bang, you're dead. Checkmate. It's over. Why can't you see that?


Steve replied:
What the hell are you talking about? I just said (as I have been saying all along) it is reasonable to think of the MOQ as supporting free will "depending on how far you are willing to go in re-describing free will in order to be able to lend MOQ support to it (i.e. as DQ/sq)." How is that claim _defeated_ by Pirsig's LC annotation that DESPITE the traditional definition of freewill the MOQ can argue against it in favor of a different view of free will??? Doesn't this quote just confirm what we both have already agreed upon from the start? I mean, I'm the one who initially brought this quote into the discussion months ago.

dmb says:
Well, now you're just lying about what you've said many, many, many times. Since anyone can check the archives, I don't know where you get the balls to deny it. In fact, i'd bet cold hard cash that you said what Hugo said at least three dozen times. Yes, now that you're pressed into a corner, you want me to pretend that I haven't been objecting to your rejection of free will in the MOQ for all these weeks and months? Nope, I'm not buying it for a second and I'm completely baffled as to why you think I would.  


Steve also said:
Perhaps you'll be willing to go back and not only respond but first actually try to read and understand what I said in this thread about dropping the metaphysical baggage for BOTH free AND determinism...


dmb says:
Oh, yea. I almost forgot. I'm also baffled as to why you think you can use James against me. Wow. I've been quoting James and scholars of James all throughout this debate and you have never once responded to any of it. It's just a stunning display of oblivious audacity. 


And besides that, I don't need to drop the metaphysical baggage because I'm not holding any. You keep trying to attach SOM baggage to ordinary words like "us" and "will" and "free" when I use them, but that baggage has never had anything to do with what I'm actually saying. The only baggage of concern is the stuff you keep dragging into it, not only adding to my claims but also using it to inform your own claims via Harris and Parfit for example. 

So, no. I don't think I need any lessons in dropping the metaphysical baggage, at least not from you. I've been saying from the very start that these are empirical questions with empirical answers but you've never once responded to any of that either. I think you've shown that you're totally impervious and incorrigible. In all seriousness, if you're unmoved by clear and solid and evidence and can't even be bothered to respond to detailed explanations, then what's the point of giving of them to you? I really can't see any.