Ron, Interesting... Because in the middle of LILA pages 155-7, that represented dmb's explanation, there is this quote: "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
How did dmb miss this? Marsha On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:53 PM, X Acto wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 3:38:01 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will > > > 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:. > > 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. > > > > Ron; > Well no, I see what Steve is driving at...... and yes ..in effect you are > saying > the same thing within differing context....... and yes duh.. > but and I say this with frequent spa ces to cannote hes > tation in a art ful fo rm.............I see the caution from both > points > of view.. > I tend towards DmB because Dave has put in the time. Personally I think dave > is > a twit....but... with that caveot..... > > He does present his claims well and he takes the time to explain himself in > as > many applicable quotes as makes his point clear and yes he does > make a better rhetorical arguement.... > > yet > > Steve is steadfast > > Which means he has a conviction > > Steves no Dummy > > I suggest to Steve that the arguement is a good one..and to take the time to > accurately articulate it.. > > without the ker smackity-smack ameri-street shit talk > > .. > > There is some thing here if we are all steadfast to dig at it > > and yes feeling are going to get hurt > .. > > not all pain is gain > > but hears to hope... > > cheers all > > Love Ron > > > > -------------------- > > > > > 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 > > 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 ___ 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
