Arlo! Here I am, at last.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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. > > John: Well then, expound then, oh teacher. Arlo: > Free will, as Ian said, is constrained by the possible. John: Not completely, Arlo. Or rather, "the possible" implies a real, independent possibility, and the fact is that reality is to an extent controlled more by expectation of possible than independent like you imply. I hate to run afoul of the Krimel rule, but QM proves it, at least on a fundamental level, and in metaphysics, fundamental levels is what its all about. I agree Free will is constrained. Obviously I can't close my eyes and wish for an albino duck to suddenly appear. I've always thought that definition is ridiculous. Free will is simply the freedom to choose. Choose how I think and react to the environment I find myself in. I have free will in a prison cell, to orient myself toward my captivity in any way I choose. Arlo: > 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. > > John: I agree with that. It's why I take issue with your and Ian's, "constrained by the possible". The perception of possibility is itself, a choice. So. Mutually enabling indeed. Arlo: > 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. > > John: I see why without reading the theories. What can sq be but "structure". What is meant by DQ but, "agency"? A very simplistic finger, maybe, but good enough for rough and ready use. Good enough for me. Arlo: > 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. > > John: Ok, now you're a complete moronist. There is no way, the mere addition of complexity explains the ratcheting up of choices, that each level experiences as part of it's "patterned complexity". Even on the simplest level, the difference between the choice and adaptability of organic life, vs the seemingly complete absence of any choice at all for the inorganic reality of newtonian cause and effect, the difference is remarkable and displays the fundamental truth of Pirsig's divisions of reality. You've got it just blending into complexity mechanistically, like the old clock parts shaken in a box theory, multiplied by infinite time. All ridiculous. Arlo: > 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. > > John: Plbbbttttt. Arlo: > 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: Man, you really are a moronist. It's sad. Oh well, your choice. You can look at it like that. I personally prefer to view the idea that free will, is fundamental to the cosmos. Then it seems like I'm here by choice, rather than accident, and that makes more overall sense to my life as a whole. But that's my choice. > [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. > > John: Fair enough, you say. I'd say, "duh". Arlo: The language is a bit anthropomorphic for my tastes, but I'd be okay with > the analogy. > > All language is anthropomorphic, pretending otherwise is the cruelest conceit. What are the words to that Rush song? They spring to mind. Hum the tune as you read along. "you can choose some ready guide from some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice! You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear - I will choose free will!" 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
