Hello everyone On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:43 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Dan > > Dan: > But Ron, that isn't what I said. Please re-read my post. I said > determinism is involved on the biological level, not free will. > > Ron: > Determinism is only involved because we are discussing static patterns of > quality, > saying that atoms can be viewed as "preferring their bonds", insinuates a > certain degree of > > free will, prefference meaning choice correct? or am I missing the point.
Dan: Correct. Both free will and determinism are correct. > > Dan: > Where does Robert Pirsig state that "free will" is Quality? This is > what RMP says: > > "A third puzzle illuminated by the Metaphysics of Quality is the > ancient "free will vs. determinism controversy." Determinism is the > philosophic doctrine that man, like all other objects in the universe, > follows fixed scientific laws, and does so without ion. Free will is > the philosophic doctrine that man makes choices independent of the > atoms of his body." > > "In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the > extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality > it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic > Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." > > "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, > is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've > done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" > -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of > ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." [LILA] > > Dan comments: > Is this what you are referring to? > > Ron: > Indeed it is. Dan: Good. Now we are getting somewhere. > >> >> >> Dan: >> Even social patterns seem bound by determinism and not free will. Take >> the act of circumcising males. Jewish men have been circumcised for >> centuries but they are still born with foreskins. If evolution was a >> matter of free will, wouldn't Jewish males be born sans foreskin by >> now? >> >> Ron: >> I think that Pirsigs explanation of the four levels of Quality adequitly >> describes this >> Phenomena by asserting that the comparison drawn above refers to two >> different >> levels or types of evolution. Cutting off the foreskin is a social level > value, >> an intellectual >> alteration of the biological form not an intellectual or social selection > based >> on biologicaly >> inherited traits. > > Dan: > Yes, Ron. That is what I said. Choice does not affect evolution as > natural selection. That is my point. Do we agree? > > Ron: > Not quite, sorry Dan and I'll explain why further down. > >> >> Dan: >> Intellectual patterns may exhibit evolutionary free will though to be >> honest I am hard pressed to think of any examples. Can you? >> >> Ron: >> Human rights, trial by jury, self government.....just off the top of my head >> are examples given by Bob Pirsig if I'm not mistaken... sanitation.. >> agriculture, science and medicine...all contributed to increased quality >> of life and population explosions to name some biological benefits. > > Dan: > These are all static quality patterns and the MOQ says we are without > choice when we follow static quality patterns. > > Ron: > I believeyou need to re-read that quote you so generously supplied, > > "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, > is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've > done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" > -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of > ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." > > Everything is an ethical activity, everything exercises choice, this is > the basis of the idea of "natural selection" an elementary unit of ethics. > I do not think it is a stretch to connect this concept with the concept > of Quality and in so many words thats is pretty much what his explanation > concludes to. > This is why I disagree with your assertion that static patterns are > deterministic. Dan: Then I believe you are disagreeing with the MOQ and not me so much. "In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice." To the extent that static patterns control us... laws, social customs, etc... we are without choice. We have no free will when it comes to living as a productive member of society. We either conform to the dictates of society or get locked away. But... "But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." Experience as a matter of free will is undefinable. So within the framework of the MOQ, both free will and determinism are correct. Agreed? Thank you Ron. Good discussion. Dan 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
