Hello everyone On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, Ron, John and All -- > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Dan, you had stated to John >>>> >>>> I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom. >>>> Conventionally, that is so. But we are not talking conventionally >>>> here. We are using the framework of the MOQ. To have a choice is >>>> follow intellectual patterns of value and when we are dealing with >>>> static quality, we are without choice. >> >> Ron: >> Static Quality is nothing but choice and having choice is freedom. >> To have intellectual choice is to follow intellectual patterns of value >> which effect social and biological patterns of value which effect >> inorganic patterns of value. >> I make the intellectual choice to drink nothing but single malt scotch >> whiskey, this choice effects more choices, social outcast as a drunk, >> biological dependence and the breakdown of healthy tissue,chemicals >> change their bonds. Our emotions are a complicated set of molecular >> values and what are we if we are not our emotions, our values. >> The illusion of these processes is that they are static. > > [John, on 4/7]: >> >> Quite a corner you've got yourself painted into there Dan. >> One is only free to the extent that one follows DQ, but since >> all experience is immediately translated into sq, the only time >> one is truly free is in that tiny slice of time which is the pet of >> existence to Radical Empiricism. Personally, I'd like a bit >> more freedom than that. You need to reformulate, I think > > [Dan then defends his position]: >> >> Here is the exact quote from LILA: >> >> "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." >Ham: > I have been following this thread with increasing frustration, as it > confirms my suspicion that neither Mr. Pirsig nor the MoQists can justify > Free Will in a reality controlled by Quality. As a consequence, they've > concluded that it's either insignificant or "illusional". This denies the > very meaning of existential awareness in relation to ultimate reality which > I understand it is philosophy's purpose to explain.
Hi Ham Good of you to weigh in, thank you. In the framework of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience, and freedom is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. So free will is neither insignificant or "illusional." When we follow experience (Dynamic Quality) we are free. And to the extent our behaviour is controlled by static quality, we are without choice. >Ham: > Being forced to follow an undefinable course is coercion, not freedom. Dan: No one is forced to experience Dynamic reality.. However, everyone is forced to follow static quality pattens that make up our every day conventional reality. Ham: It > means that man is channeled to a prescribed set of behaviors--even when he > "thinks" he has a choice--which is hardly the expression of Free Will by any > definition. Dan: As long as human beings follow static quality patterns, they are without choice. Cultural patterns prescribe very definite sets of behaviour that if a person steps outside of, they will either be imprisoned or eventually grow ill and die. Ham: If we are "controlled by patterns of quality" and are compelled > to follow DQ by cosmic law, as the good book says, then free will is a myth. Dan: No one is compelled to follow Dynamic Quality though, so this argument is invalid. Ham: > Subject to these conditions, why should the issue of moral values even > arise, let alone be endlessly debated in a philosophy forum? Dan: Well, Ham, it certainly has opened up a hornets' nest. I am a bit frustrated myself that some of us have such trouble seeing what it is that the MOQ is saying about free will vs. determinism. I am guessing that a person outside the framework of the MOQ (so to speak) cannot form a proper understanding with the notion of Dynamic freedom/static determinism, thus I thought perhaps it might be fruitful to answer your post as best I can. John has grown increasingly belligerent and Ron clearly supports John's notions that static quality choices are available to us all. Thankfully, Marsha and Joe seem to get what I am saying. >Ham: > In order for man to be a free agent, he is created as a 'being-aware', an > individuated entity that stands apart from the Creator or Source. He can be > neither indigenous to it nor the essence of its value. But so that he may > realize this value without the bias of absolute knowledge, the psychic core > of man's being is value-sensibility. In existential terms, cognizant > awareness is a non-entity: it cannot be localized, quantified, or directly > observed. The individual is a choice-maker only by virtue of the fact that > he is an autonomous entity. Dan: I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Dynamic Quality in MOQ terms is what you are naming cognizant awareness. However, it is neither a Creator or Source, yet it is both source and goal of experience. Human beings do not stand apart from Dynamic Quality. >Ham: > I don't know how this translates in MoQ terms, or whether a cognizant self > made of quality patterns can even be considered "autonomous". I could care > less whether "Pirsig says" or "Dan says" something different. I do know, > however, that unless man is an independent creature, capable of realizing > value for himself and free to act in accordance with his choices, human life > has no purpose or meaning other than to complete the evolutionary process of > an insentient universe. Dan: Yes, part of the problem I've had with your posts over the years is your not caring what Robert Pirsig (or the MOQ) says. This is after all a forum dedicated to his work. Be that as it may though, within the framework of the MOQ, human beings are not independent of the universe. You seem to be claiming they are, which puts you at drastic odds with the MOQ and anything I can say to the contrary. Still, I feel it is good to at least recognize these differences, for what it is worth. >Ham: > I'm sorry if this offends any of you, or if it qualifies as apostasy to the > "official dogma". But I hope you'll let me know if it doesn't make sense to > you. Dan: No offense taken. Thank you for your time; if you care to share comments on any of my points, I would be happy to read them. 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
