Hello everyone On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > >>> 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. > > Steve: > Well, yeah. We are our value patterns.
Dan: Yes, but choice and value isn't necessarily synonymous within the framework of the MOQ. > > > RMP Annotation 29 begins... > The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a self that is > independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. > There is no self that contains these patterns. These patterns contain > the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and > scientific knowledge. > > Steve: > Since the Cartesian self is denied, the free will is denied since > there is no autonomous agent to posses the faculty known as free will. Dan: Better to say Dynamic Quality possesses us, that way it is clear we cannot possess free will. Still, it doesn't necessarily follow that free will is denied on account of the Cartesian self being denied. I think you recognize that yourself later in your post. > > > > Dan: >>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. > > Steve: > I think that is a good analysis. Since the MOQ denies SOM causality, > it also denies determinism. The MOQ denies both horns of the free > will/determinism dilemma. > > But then the MOQ also reinterprets the issue in MOQ terms as the > difference between identifying with the patterns or the capacity for > change... > > > RMP continues... > In Zen, there is reference to big self and small self Small self is > the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality. Dan: Yes, an excellent quotation and right to the point. I overlooked that quote in my discussion with Ron... I think it might have helped him see what I was getting at in a better way. >Dan: >> 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? > > Steve: > Sure. To the extent that we identify the self with static patterns, > the self is not free. To the extent the self refers to Big Self, it is > free. It is DQ, the quality of freedom from static patterns and the > generator of static patterns. Free will and determinism are both > denied in a way and also both affirmed in a way. Dan: This seems like a better way of putting it... that free will and determinism are both seen as correct in the framework of the MOQ. Despite what Ron seems to think, I never said that free will doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the conventional static quality sense that he wants it to exist. I think we are in agreement, Steve. Thank you for taking the time to elucidate on your thoughts. 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
