dmb said to Dan:
....Determinism is the claim that our actions are caused by forces beyond our
control. It's a claim about the causes of our actions, not the predictability
of the consequences of our actions. In the former, our actions are the effects
of causes while in the latter our actions are the causes of effects. See what I
mean?
Dan replied:
Yes, I think so. But I am not sure that that is what I am getting at. If B
values precondition A, then our actions are determined by preconditions and not
by a chain of causality. Our actions are the effect of preconditions, not
choices, and those preconditions are beyond our control. But that doesn't
preclude moral responsibility for our actions if our actions are seen as a
(beginning) response to Quality. Right?
dmb says:
Well, no. If we say that our actions are the effects of preconditions beyond
our control, then we've still formulated these actions as the effects of
causes. The main idea of saying B values precondition A (instead of saying A
causes B) is to replace causality with the expression of preference. This
formulation gets rid of determinism and causality even at the inorganic level,
even in physics. At this level we then can say that even the so-called "laws"
of nature are better described as extremely persistent patterns of preference.
With each level the patterns of preference become increasingly less persistent
and more varied. By the time we get the question of free will, we're talking
about a person's capacity to express preferences. The biological, social and
intellectual levels are even less law-like, less determined, and this is where
it makes sense to talk about human freedom and responsibility.
We don't say subatomic particles have moral responsibility, of course. But in
Pirsig's very broad notion of morality, even the molecules that hold a chair
together are seen as a moral order. The MOQ paints everything as part of a
moral order from the ground up. And the reformulation of 'A causes B' is meant
to extend the capacity to respond to Quality all the way down. In the MOQ's
reformulation, B was not an inevitable, mechanical effect of A. Instead, it's
about what B values, what B prefers.
To B or not to B? That is the equation. (Bad pun)
What concerns me is simply put. Determinism is a moral nightmare. It precludes
moral responsibility and denies freedom altogether. I'm fairly certain that Sam
Harris and Steve are wildly at odds with the MOQ and with pragmatism on this
one. If I tried to express Steve's determinism in MOQ terms, this view would
say that we are a complex forest of evolved static patterns (so far, so good)
and static patterns both proceed from and follow natural laws. Unlike the MOQ,
this view does not replace causality with patterns of preference and it does
not include the most vital ingredient: Dynamic Quality. What we have in Steve's
determinism is simply a return to amoral, scientific objectivity, where nothing
is right or wrong. It just functions like machinery.
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
