Hello Ham, You might find the presentations, discussion and Q&A interesting on the reflective self very interesting. There are times when I would like to agree with you but I do not have the language. The discourse between these gentlemen might help.
http://www.cbs.columbia.edu/cscp/freewill/ Marsha On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > On Tues, 6/28/11 at 4:23 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Ham, >> >> Free Will adds indeterminacy into our actions, otherwise they >> wouldn't be free. What in me defines the indeterminate so that >> actions are not predestined? Pirsig very cleverly suggested a >> metaphysics DQ/SQ where DQ is a reality which remains >> indefinable and knowable. I suggest that emotions are DQ only, >> while intellect is DQ/SQ. >> >> Evolution defines reality in definable levels in existence. Calcium >> is found in a rock and in my bones. DQ/SQ evolution suggests >> levels in existence. I don't exist the same as the rock, and there is >> something in me that identifies this, and the horse of my actions >> freely chooses which way to go, sometimes right, sometimes left. >> >> To know DQ in an evolutionary environment (morality) is enabled >> in a metaphysics which recognizes undefined (free) defined (actions). >> I suggest the emotional level is DQ only. I have to arrange my reality >> in some order, even though my indefinable emotions tell me there is >> always something more. > > Joe, in my epistemology Will is simply intention or what we want. And the > fact that what we want is often not what a deterministic Nature gives us is > itself proof that our Will is free. Free Will is not something "added" to > our actions; it is intrinsic to our value sensibility. What we desire or > want out of life is the Value of our essential Source. We sense this Value > as something we do not possess but intend for ourselves; yet we can only > realize it in our experience of otherness. This drives us to create, > explore, and manipulate an objective world which represents the values we > feel intrinsically. > > You seem to treat Free Will as an emotional-based idée fixé that is imposed > on you by an "evolutionary environment" which you call "morality". I see > morality as a code of behavior man has invented to ensure the survival of > civilization. There is nothing particularly "moral" in the law of gravity or > the evolution of the species. On the other hand, Free Will (the power to > choose) is a moral principle exercised by a value-sensible agent. And I > think you slight Value ('DQ') when you restrict it to an emotional level. For > example, it is not the emotions but intellect that defines the levels of > existence. It is not only emotion but reason that determines the value of a > work of art. And it takes more than compassion to establish the laws and > enforce the penalties of a just society. > > Frankly, I find too many operands left "undefined" in the MoQ construct to > make it workable. You claim to "know" DQ but can't define it, much less > acknowledge it as the uncreated source. You say the emotions are > "indefinable", despite an abundance of psychological, neurological, and > endocrinology studies on the subject. Mosr disturbing to me is that the > majority here either reject the idea of a cognizant agent altogether or > blithely accept Marsha's "ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected > inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns" as a definition for > selfness. > > As I've said before, it's meaningless to argue for Free Will unless you > acknowledge the existence of the willing agent. > > Thanks, Joe. > > --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
