Hey, Dan --
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:44 AM, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham
Sorry for the error. I copied and pasted these quotes from my
"searchable" LILA. Sometimes errors arise in the translation.
The word "ion" should read "exception." I'll take more care in the future.
Ham:
Also, what was Pirsig inferring when he called Free Will the
"philosophic doctrine that man makes choices independent of the
atoms of his body"? How do ions and atoms factor in free
decision-making?
Dan:
Well, forget ions. What he's getting at is the materialistic doctine
that free will arises from matter.
Ham:
My interpretation of this statement is that Free Will is an outmoded and
unnecessary concept inasmuch as "everything is an ethical activity"
automatically responding to "betterness". The author allows for "free
behavior" only in the sense that it follows an undefinable goal called DQ.
I
don't see how that differs from the laws of Nature, nor do I understand
how
being constrained to a predetermined goal can be construed as exercising
Free Will.
Frankly, the rationale of these three paragraphs seems to argue that we
would be better off not having a mind of our own. In that way, the
universe
could proceed in its prescribed course toward betterness without human
interference.
Dan:
In the MOQ, the universe and humans are not independent entities.
Ah, and therein lies the controversy. For if man is not an independent
entity, he can not exercise the power of Free Will. Instead he is
inextricably bound to the laws of nature, just as are earth's evolution and
the planetary orbits. His choices of good over evil are meaningless, since
his behavior will necessarily follow the cosmic program. How does this
differ from the "materialistic doctrine" disparaged by Pirsig? It's not
matter that controls the universe, it's an adjective called "Quality".
Dan, rather than refuting Ron's suggestion that Free Will is natural
selection, you have affirmed it. Only through the existential separation of
Sensibility from the Source can Value be realized. Experiential existence,
not Quality, is the subject/object world from which all knowledge is
derived. By denying the individual subject as the value agent, the MoQ in
effect makes Freedom impossible and man's will a deceptive illusion. Where
do human desires, aspirations, and spiritual fulfillment factor into this
paradigm? The MoQ may appease the logical positivists, but in the present
form it doesn't pass muster as a philosophy to live by.
[Dan]:
To sum up a philosophy from a few paragraphs does a grave misjustice
to that philosophy. Would you like it if someone did that to your
philosophy? I really think you need to further investigate the MOQ.
I can't count the number of times my philosophy of Essence has been summed
up and mischaracterized in this forum. And my decade-long "investigation"
of the MoQ has thus far failed to persuade me that 'Qualityism' is the
metaphysical breakthrough that offers hope for mankind.
Sorry to be so negative, Dan, but it's the way I feel at this juncture. (Of
course, there's always the possibility that someone with a more open mind
will appear on the scene to encourage me.)
Thanks and best wishes,
Ham
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
