Hi Dan --
Thanks for responding so graciously to what to you must seem a radical
epistemology.
Normally I let these controversies run their natural course--and this has
been a long one. But Individual freedom is of vital importance to me, not
(as Andre insinuates) because I'm an American, but because it is a
fundamental principle of humanistic philosophy and the central theme of
Essentialism. Your statement that "the confusion is thinking that having a
choice is freedom" is particularly perplexing in that it appears to
contradict the definition of freedom: "the absence of constraint in choice
or action." It suggests that having free choice is a deception played on us
by an overruling cosmic force called Quality.
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.
No one is forced to experience Dynamic reality.. However, everyone
is forced to follow static quality patterns that make up our every day
conventional reality.
I try to think of static quality as the "experiential patterns" that
constitute physical objects and (in MoQ terms) human beingness as well. It
is these relational patterns that we are free to choose and manipulate in
accordance with our individual value priorities. What we are NOT free to
alter are the dynamics of nature as codified by the laws of physics, which I
would have expected to represent the Dynamic Quality of Pirsig's thesis.
Your explanation seems to reverse my analysis. You say we are free to
follow DQ because "it is synonymous with experience," but are "forced to
follow SQ patterns that make up conventional [experiential?] reality." I
don't know what to make of this interpretation. For if DQ is the primary
reality that accounts for the design and evolution of the
universe--including the emergence of man--how can it be open to man's
choices? And if man is also forced to follow static patterns, then there is
no freedom.
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.
We shall all eventually grow ill and die according to unchangeable laws of
nature. But while we are alive and well, we can choose to become
carpenters, writers or painters; vote for liberal or conservative
politicians; indulge in gourmet meals or fast foods; and support or oppose
cultural norms, even if we are ostracized or imprisoned for doing so.
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 and free choice are possible only by virtue of
the fact that man 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.
Cognizant awareness is not the source but is proprietary to the autonomous
self. It is not collective or transferable to other individuals. That
doesn't sound to me like Dynamic Quality, Dan. But if DQ is both the source
and goal of experience, is experience not the possession of Quality rather
than the conscious subject? If so, how is human experience not
predetermined?
Ham:
[U]nless 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.
Thanks for your latitude, Dan, and I apologize for departing from the
conventional interpretation. But I do not claim that human beings are
independent of the universe. I'm saying that individuals are free agents in
a universe largely of their own making, that the ground of this universe is
Value (dfferentiated by nothingness), and that the uncreated source of man
and his universe is Essence.
It is not Quality but man himself whose sensibility determines what goodness
is, and it is by his measure that morality and justice are established as
cultural norms. For morality and behavior to be dictated by an external
source would deprive man of his freedom and the capacity to act in
accordance with his values.
Respectfully submitted,
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
