[John to Ron]
I noticed that freewill is Quality. ... Has anybody noticed?
[Arlo]
I don't think I'd phrase it like this. You *might* be able to pull
off an analogy like "DQ=free will/ SQ=determinism", but I think even
that is cumbersome and largely erroneous because of the meaning of these terms.
Free will, as Ian said, is constrained by the possible. Personally, I
think structuration theorists (like Archer, Giddens and Bourdieu)
have given us a language to speak about not only the "range of
possible responses" with which the organism can respond to its
environment, but also the realization that the "constraints" are
actually what generate wider possibility. That is, the "structure"
and the "agency" are not opposed but mutually enabling.
I have thought over the years that Pirsig's ideas about the
"interactions" between static patterns and Dynamic Quality mirror the
relationship (in a great number of ways) as between "structure" and
"agency", and when you read these theories I think you'll see why.
Within a MOQ, patterns have (based on their level and complexity) a
certain repertoire of responses to their environments. This
repertoire is not only "bounded" by "structure", but is also enabled
by it. Increasing structural complexity (intra-level) or building off
highly complex structures (inter-level) increases the "agency"
through increasing the potential responses the pattern has.
It is the increased structural complexity (for example) that enabled
a mouse to have a greater degree of "agency" than an amoeba, and it
is the added "structures" created through social and intellectual
evolution that enable even far greater "agency" in a human.
What some call "free will" does not exist independent of, or counter
to, the "constraints" placed on the individual by structure. These
"structures" are Quality as well, and indeed it is these very
structures which enable the "possibilities" or "choices available"
that people construe as "free will".
[John]
You have to choose...to care.
[Arlo]
Sure, you have to experience a variance of Quality before you can act
on that variance. Let's say we take our friendly amoeba and instead
of a drop of acid we put a drop of Nixium by it instead. Nixium, by
the way, is well known to be complete "unsensible" to an amoeba, for
all intents and purposes it is just the same as if of nothing at all
was placed next to the amoeba.
We could say that, since the amoeba does not sense any variance in
its experience with the introduction of the Nixium, it "doesn't care"
that the Nixium is there. Fair enough.
And if we go back and drop some acid, which will cause the amoeba to
notice a variance in the Quality of its experience, we can say that
it "cares" the acid is there, and it "chooses" to move away from the
acid. Fair enough.
The language is a bit anthropomorphic for my tastes, but I'd be okay
with the analogy.
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
