Dan and the free will defenders --
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:48 PM, "Dan Glover" <[email protected]>
wrote:
The term freedom has several meanings. To avoid confusion,
I think the best definition to use in this circumstance is...
3. the power to determine action without restraint. [Dictionary.com]
...although your definition works just as well. Most all our actions
are constrained by social and intellectual static quality patterns.
As long as our behaviour is ruled by static quality patterns, we are
without choice. When we follow Dynamic Quality, which is
undefined, we are free.
[Dan, previously]:
Within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological static
quality patterns are seen as physical. Social and intellectual static
quality patterns arer seen as non-physical. Human beings are seen
as a collection of all four levels of static quality plus being capable
of responding to undefined Dynamic Quality.
Dan, what you are calling a "framework" is the ontology--or in this case,
epistemology--of a philosopher's thesis. I hesitate to raise the question,
but isn't it possible that Pirsig is wrong?
If you'll permit me to construct a simple word picture, I think it may help
you to see where I'm coming from.
Since earliest recorded history humans worshipped the Sun. It was the giver
of life and therefore became their god. Before it was known that man's
survival depended on plants utilizing solar energy, ancient cultures
considered the bright ball in the sky as a God that brought light. The
first civilization, the Sumerians, had many gods, including the sun. To the
Egyptians he was the supreme god, Ra, and the pharaoh was his earthly
representative. The Greeks called him Helios, who drove a fiery chariot
across the heavens, the Romans Apollo, one of their major deities. The
Polynesians, the Incas, Aztecs and Mayas all worshipped the sun and made
human sacrifices to him, and the Druids in Britain built Stonehenge in his
honor.
Gods were planetary in ancient nations, and, for one reason or another, the
tribal people chose to pay tribute to a single deity as their protector,
often following a world catastrophe caused by rival god. The fact that the
peoples of the earth were confused by planets and comet trails, and Yahwe
was the name of the deity associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of
Egypt, had far-reaching consequences for the development of a "personalized"
religion and the movement toward monotheism.
The writers who penned the scriptures saw Yahwe as the Creator of all
things, and Love was attributed to His paternal power. Biblical scribes
were pointing to an essential attribute of the deity--the fulfillment of
human desire. Although the Judeo-Christian god was worshipped as a Supreme
Being, it also satisfied man's quest for a first cause or absolute source.
But it was the redeeming power of Love ascribed to this Being that gave
believers a god/man reciprocity missing in polytheistic religions.
Everything we want out of life or that we cherish in existence manifests our
desire for the wellspring of Value. Since there is no such thing as
unrealized love or value, and Value cannot exist without a transcendent
source, every conscious self is drawn to the source by the power of its
value. The faithful call this power "Divine Love", phenomenalists call it
"intentionality", and philosophers called it the "Summum Bonum"--except for
a secular philosopher named Robert Pirsig who called it "Quality".
God is
We all come into the world as hungry, frightened, curious infants,
traumatized by the delivery process, and seeking comfort and security.
Our wants are initially satisfied by a mother who provides food and
security, and the comfort of learning to cope with a changing environment.
We learn to crawl, then walk, in order to explore new territory. Later,
learning to talk enables us to gain the acquaintance of family and
friends, as well as the security that comes from social acceptance and
shared ideas. Soon we are taught what is right and wrong, usually within
the moral context of a religious belief system. By the time we reach
puberty, if properly raised, we will have assumed some personal
responsibility, social identity, and the desire to acquire more knowledge,
usually of a practical nature.
Adolescence is a period of doubting for most of us. We try to supplement
what we lack in self-reliance with the aid of others; we exult in our
successes, but also experience failures; and we typically view life as a
balancing act.
Dan:
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.
Ham:
I try to think of static quality as the "experiential patterns" that
constitute physical objects and (in MoQ terms) human beingness as well.
Dan:
Within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological static
quality patterns are seen as physical. Social and intellectual static
quality patterns arer seen as non-physical. Human beings are seen as a
collection of all four levels of static quality plus being capable of
responding to undefined Dynamic Quality.
Ham:
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.
Dan:
Laws of physics are seen as intellectual static quality patterns
within the framework of the MOQ. Dynamic Quality and the dynamic
forces of nature are not to be confused.
Ham:
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."
Dan:
Yes, I suppose I am reversing your analysis. Within the framework of
the MOQ, experience is seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality, which
is both undefined/infinitely definable. Static quality patterns
constrain conventional reality. I don't know if "forced" is a term I
agree with... "compelled" seems to work better.
Ham:
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.
Dan:
Intellectual static quality patterns are responsible for the design
and evolution of the universe as we know it to be. Within the
framework of the MOQ, ideas come before matter.
On the free will vs determinism controversy, the MOQ is quite clear in
stating that when our behaviour is controlled by static quality
patterns, it is without choice. It doesn't say we are forced into
following static quality patterns, however. We are free to follow
Dynamic Quality.
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:
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.
Dan:
I think it is better to say we are free to choose to become
carpenters, writers, etc, to the extent that our behaviour is
controlled by preconditions set up by those static quality patterns.
In other words, as much as I would like it, I cannot choose to be a
starting pitcher for the Chicago Cubs. For one thing, I am 56 years
old. And for another, I didn't have the physical talent for that
particular choice even 30 years ago. My choices are constrained by
static quality patterns that dictate certain preconditions that don't
always exist.
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.
Ham:
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.
Dan:
Thank you for the correction. I obviously misread what you're saying.
Ham:
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?
Dan:
Yes, experience is not us as human beings possessing Dynamic Quality.
It is us as human beings being possessed by "it." But that doesn't
translate into Dynamic Quality as being some kind of external agent.
Experience isn't predetermined until it has become intellectualized
into static quality patterns.
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.
Ham:
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.
Dan:
Thank you once again for the correction.
Ham:
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.
Dan:
I don't think we are as far apart as it might seem. Quality and
morality are seen as the "groundstuff" of reality within the framework
of the MOQ, not as an external source. Static quality patterns do not
deprive human beings of freedom... rather they constrain and compell
us to act in accordance with social and intellectual rules of
behaviour, without which there would be no civilization.
Thank you for your time,
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
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
