I think we agree on all the real questions Roger - what I meant to point out
was that *not all SOMists are materialists*. I think this is true of actual
SOMists and also of the SOMists RMP mentions (I think he includes some
idealists for instance) and also of the definition of SOM in general: that
one beleives the world is made up of objects and subjects does nothing to
indicate whether one beleives these objects and subjects to be physical or
metaphysical or neither or both.
Yes?
Oh I'd want you to think that I'm an Indian elephant of course: tame and
hard working. British elephant? You mean the kilted mammoth?
E
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
> Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:51:45 EDT
> To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MF Free Will
>
> Hi Elephant,
>
> Thanks for the response. You mention you can't make sense of my
> disconnected/influenced dichotomy. I am not sure if it is because I was
> unclear or perhaps -- God forbid -- IT MADE NO SENSE. Let me try to help us
> decide the matter....
>
> ELEPHANT:
> I don't follow your disconnected/influenced dichotomy. I would have thought
> that there arer all kinds of connections that one thing can have with
> another *other than* the connection of being influenced by it. No? How
> about: contiguity, compressence, codetermination, etc etc. Do you see?
>
> ROG:
> No argument here.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> What might give your disconnected/influenced dichotomy some force, would be
> if it were assumed that subjects and objects were both physical realities.
> In that case, one might say, to be is to be influenced. In other words, no
> physical object can escape cause and effect.
>
> ROG:
> Let me clarify that it was indeed this set of assumptions that I was
> suggesting lead to the problem when I wrote:
>
>> To me, FREE WILL has always been an inherent oxymoron of subject object
>> metaphysics. If we start with a distinct subject, it must be either
>> disconnected from the envirionment -- which is absurd -- or influenced by
> its
>> environment -- which leads to determinism. The SOM self leads to the free
>> will / determinism controversy.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> ......So if we assume
> that 'subject' and 'object' both refer to physical realities, it stands to
> reason that they are either connected and influencing (indeed determining)
> each other, or entirely disconnected.
>
> ROG:
> Help me out here, because I think I meant to say what I think I understand
> you to have written.
>
>
> BIG E:
> But ofcourse the assertion that 'subject' and 'object' refer to physical
> realities is a *false* one (as RMP helps us to understand). Neither
> 'subject' *nor* 'object' could ever refer to a Physical particular, because
> there are no such. It is rather nearer the truth to put things the other
> way around and to say that 'physical realities' refers to *grammatical*
> enties, i.e. objects (which are patterns of value). Physically, all there
> is is continuous value, not disctrete objects or subjects. That being the
> case, I cannot, Roger, make sense of your influenced/disconnected dichotomy.
> Do please help me out.
>
> LITTLE R:
> Again, I meant something really, really similar when I wrote:
>
>> In the MOQ, of course, both the self and the will are abstractions of
>> experience.
>
> To summarize my opinion of our opinions, it is that you and I both see free
> will as entirely reasonable within a value-based metaphysics, but as
> logically inconsistent in a subject /object material causation-type
> metaphysics. (I then went on to explain that within a value based
> metaphysics that free will can be characterized as a correlation between what
> I called particular "abstractions of experience" (or what you called
> "gramatical entities"). I wrote:
>
>> Free will in the MOQ is where our "WILL" abstraction and our
>> "SELF" abstraction are consistent. My favorite illustration of this is in
>> the dieter's proclamation:
>>
>> " I couldn't resist that piece of chocalate cake!"
>>
>> If the dieter's self is aligned with the desire to resist eating and be
> thin,
>> then this action is against their will. If the self is aligned with the
>> biological urge, then it is an example of free will.
>>
>> In the MOQ, free will is as simple as the correlation between two patterns
> of
>> abstraction. ....
>
> Sorry for being so confusing. Let me know if I misinterpreted anything you
> wrote, and if this clears things up or not. I am, as they say, "all ears",
> though mine certainly aren't as big as yours.
>
> Rog
>
> PS -- Are you an African Elephant or an Indian Elephant? (Or a British
> Elephant)?
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST