Hello everyone On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Steve said: > ...I can only believe something if I actually think it is true. Clearly we > don't > choose beliefs freely. In fact there is no "I" outside of such value patterns. > Rather we ARE our beliefs (as well as our other patterns of preference.) > > Ron jumps in: > I agree, but that is not to say they are determined, set in stone, unable to > change. As proponants of an MoQ > we ought to be re-examining our reasons for our values, reflect on why we hold > certain values that make > up the "I". In my own experience it's the knee-jerk prejudices that I examine > most. It is not easy because > as you say we are invested in certain beliefs, we dedfine ourselves by them > ALTHOUGH we CAN change > them we may exercise the choice, difficult as it is. Having PTSD, it is > essential to work on those patterns > of value or those values dominate your life. The fundemental belief in freeing > ones "self" from rigid values > is the belief in the power of choice and change. That is why I think the term > "derminism" does not hold > an accurate assessment pertaining to ALL static patterns of value and why I > disagree with Dan.
Dan: As long as we are using the framework of the MOQ, all static quality patterns are determined, while the response to Dynamic Quality is associated with choice and change. You said it yourself, Ron, you can have it both ways... by Dynamically freeing oneself from static quality patterns that determine one's life. That is precisely what I've been saying all along. Not sure now where our disagreement lies... > > dmb says to Steve: > Right, we can only adopt new beliefs if they fit. They have to harmonize with > existing beliefs, our temperament and purposes, etc.. It has to be plausible, > it > has to work and it has to matter. The new view has to be a "live option", as > James called it. We are "wedged and controlled", he said. Our truths are > wedged > between sensible, concrete realities and the whole set of existing beliefs. > But > to say there are controlling factors is not the same thing as saying they are > determined. Determinism is a pretty strong word. In fact, we don't need to > exaggerate or use hyperbole to paint it as a rather drastic view. It says all > events are determined by a perfect chain of causality, going all the way back > to > the big bang or to God, conceived as the First Cause. Dan: Yes, that's right. The static social and intellectual quality patterns of our culture constrain us, or wedge and control our truths and beliefs into conforming. In a static sense, we have certain options open to us, yet those options and choices are predicated on the social and intellectual quality patterns that our culture exhibits. That isn't to say our lives our determined, however. The MOQ denies causality, stating instead that our preferences for certain preconditions are a beginning response to Dynamic Quality... that static quality patterns do what they have to do but they would prefer freedom from any static quality control. > > Ron inserting his 2cents: > Agree, it really is an inaccurate portrayal of what we mean by "static > patterns > of value" in a broad general > sense of the term. It is so drastic, and the philosophic consequences so great > that to claim that it holds > foundational meaning pertaining to the MoQ is disaterous to the whole meaning > of > the word "Quality". Dan: Well, if you properly understand what the MOQ is saying, I don't see a problem. This is why RMP states that both determinism and free will are correct. > > > > Steve said: > The above had the problem I always had with Pascal's Wager. Even if we think > it > would be good to believe something we think is false, we can't simply will > ourselves to do so. > > dmb says: > Yea, and Pascal tries to motivate us to place a bet on God by arguing that > eternity is a long time and so there is a great deal at stake. It begs the > question because you have to believe in eternal heaven to think there is > anything at stake. I can't think of a less pragmatic way to frame it. The > consequences of our beliefs will be felt in the afterlife? This is the sort of > thing that gave rise to James's notion of beliefs as either dead and living > options. For me, pearly gates and golden streets are impossible to believe. > Sure, that would be nice and I'd like to believe that I'll live forever but > what > I CAN believe is that life will go on for millions of years. Hope it includes > human life of some kind for a long while. I think we shouldn't say anything > about "eternity". I also think mortality has always been a fact of life for > everything that has ever lived. It's about time we got used to it. > > Ron: > I think thats why the belief in betterness, cuts away all the rational > explanations and leaves with a verifyable > empirical reality that is also an answer to those rationalist appeals for > ethics > and morality, it gives reasons > for good besides eternal social appeals to ideals of reward and authority. Dan: A belief in betterness, is a static quality pattern, a rational explanation for that which is beyond rational explanations. > > > > Steve said: > My point was to say that free will/ determinism is an issue with no practical > consequences and therefore a fake philosophical problem not that we ought to > "choose free will." What could it ever mean to behave as though you don't have > any choice in the matter at hand? It is to ask, what would you choose if you > had > no choice? A nonsensical question. Dan: As living human beings, we are capable of responding to Dynamic Quality, and as members of society we are bound up by cultural mores determined by that society. For instance, in the society I inhabit, red lights mean stop and green lights mean go. The law constrains my actions. Now, in another society, it would be easy to imagine the opposite: green light means stop and red light means go... kind of like driving on the "wrong" side of the road, if you will. That said, I am not sure how the issue of free will vs determinism is a fake philosophical problem. It appears to me that RMP included it in LILA to help elucidate the distinction between static quality and Dynamic Quality. He wouldn't have spent so much time on it if he thought it was a dead issue. > > dmb says: > Well, the issue sort of dissolves for MOQers because, like you said, the > autonomous subject and causality itself are no longer assumed starting points. > But the determinism would have profound moral consequences. Nobody could ever > be > held responsible for their actions and nothing we say or do could ever make a > difference. All we can do is play the roles exactly as they were written. Dan: Right, if reality were purely static quality, then all our actions and consequences for those actions would be determined beforehand. But according to the MOQ, we are capable of responding freely to Dynamic Qualiy. This response changes the moral landscape. > > > Ron: > I think You have really touched on the value of holding such a view, the > reasons > why one would preffer such > a belief and why one would hold to it strongly and it all hinges on personal > responsibility. > > DmB: > And yes, the debate lends itself to all sorts of seemingly paradoxical claims > about being determined to believe in free will or being free to choose > determinism. I think these aren't much more than linguistic card tricks. The > consequences of believing one or the other would be felt in practical > situations, like the courts. What does democracy and political freedom mean > in a > determined world? In that sense, it's not a fake problem. > > > Ron: > Again Dave, a sound conclusion and the reason why I am choosing to disagree > with > Dan on the issue. Dan: Actually, Ron, dmb is agreeing with me and not with your point of view, at least that's how I read it. Re-read his first sentence carefully: "And yes, the debate lends itself to all sorts of seemingly paradoxical claims about being determined to believe in free will or being free to choose determinism." Dan comments: Do you see your mistake, Ron? The big word to really notice here is "or" in this sentence. You seem intent upon believing in free will to the exclusion of determinism. Within the framework of the MOQ, when our behavior is dictated by static quality patterns, it is without choice. But when we follow Dynamic Quality, our behavior is free. > > Steve said: > Outside of a religious context I can't see how the free will/determinism > question is one we ought to feel like we need to solve. It is purely > philosophical in the derogatory sense of the term unless you need to sort out > the theological problem of evil. Dan: I tend to disagree with this, Steve. Not that we'll ever solve the free will vs determinisn issue, but rather by using the framework of the MOQ to shed light on the subject, we are better able to see how our own lives are affected by static quality patterns that dictate the decisions that we make. It's like walking around in chains shouting, I'm free! I'm free! > > Ron: > True, but as Dave stated above it does support a point of view of not being > responsible for your values > or reasons for holding them having large philosophical consequences, > especially > when one claims > that it composes a rather large portion of the framework of the MoQ. I agree, > MoQ does render the > Problem moot that is why I contend that it can't possibly reflect the broad > general framework of > Pirsigs ideas. Dan: Of course we are morally responsible for our actions. Static quality patterns ensure that we conform to social rules or suffer the consequences, but more than that, there is a Dynamic morality, some "thing" that we feel that tells us this is right. This part from ZMM speaks greatly to that end: "The Iliad is the story of the siege of Troy, which will fall in the dust, and of its defenders who will be killed in battle. The wife of Hector, the leader, says to him: ``Your strength will be your destruction; and you have no pity either for your infant son or for your unhappy wife who will soon be your widow. For soon the Acheans will set upon you and kill you; and if I lose you it would be better for me to die.'' "Her husband replies: ``Well do I know this, and I am sure of it: that day is coming when the holy city of Troy will perish, and Priam and the people of wealthy Priam. But my grief is not so much for the Trojans, nor for Hecuba herself, nor for Priam the King, nor for my many noble brothers, who will be slain by the foe and will lie in the dust, as for you, when one of the bronze-clad Acheans willcarry you away in tears and end your days of freedom. Then you may live in Argos, and work at the loom in another woman's house, or perhaps carry water for a woman of Messene or Hyperia, sore against your will: but hard compulsion will lie upon you. And then a man will say as he sees you weeping, `This was the wife of Hector, who was the noblest in battle of the horse-taming Trojans, when they were fighting around Ilion.' This is what they will say: and it will be fresh grief for you, to fight against slavery bereft of a husband like that. But may I be dead, may the earth be heaped over my grave before I hear your cries, and of the violence done to you.'' So spake shining Hector..." Dan comments: Even though he knows he's going to die in battle, and his wife will be carried off and made a slave, he goes into battle anyway. Why? It is the pull of Dynamic morality, some "thing" he cannot explain to his wife in words, only in deeds, even though those deeds lead to his end. Shining Hector, indeed. Thank you, 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
