Hello everyone On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Dan: >> >> ...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. > > Steve: > I think Pirsig's interpretation of causality as "B values precondition > A" renders the whole question of free will versus determinism moot for > MOQers. At least it should. Choices are expressions of our values. We > do not choose our values. We are our values.
Dan: So you're basically saying we are our choices. That's an interesting way of putting it. I would think that RMP's "B values precondition A" isn't an interpretation of causation so much as it is a refutation of it: "You can always substitute "B values precondition A" for "A causes B" without changing any facts of science at all. The term "cause" can be struck out completely from a scientific description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness." [LILA] Dan comments: Note that he says the term "cause" can be completely done away with when we are describing reality, which seems to infer that the notion of causation can also be done away with in the framework of the MOQ, without any loss. He goes on to say: "The only difference between causation and value is that the word "cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of "value" is one of preference." [LILA] Dan comments: When we make statements like: sunshine causes flowers to grow, we are implying that sunshine itself brings forth flowers. If we say rather: flowers value sunshine, we can take into account the whole gamut of value, not just sunshine. To say that the MOQ renders the free will vs determinism question moot is to disregard a good portion of LILA, not to mention the relationship of Dynamic Quality and static quality. Now, I am not a "MOQer" but I fail to understand how you can make this statement if you understand the MOQ properly. Perhaps you could enlighten me? 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
