Hi Craig,
> 2) [Steve] >> free will is a meaningless term in the MOQ. > Craig: > But how can the term be meaningless if it refers to a real experience? What I meant by that claim is that as Pirsig said in Lila, "In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up." Likewise, as Pirsig says in LC, if "...the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels..." then the term is rendered meaningless for the function of distinguishing human beings from animals as the term is traditionally used to do. To explain once again why in the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up, note that it is just one more version of the question, is the Quality in the subject or the object? (as all of Pirsig's Platypi are). The dilemma of free will versus determinism is to wonder to what extent the locus of control for human action exists internally in the subject or is imposed externally by objects (or other subjects). Note also that Pirsig's reformulation of the issue in MOQ terms does not answer this question at all (nor should it since it is an SOM based question). Pirsig says that to the extent we follow DQ we are free and to the extent we follow static patterns we are not, but the original question is to know to exactly what extent that is! We already knew that the subject's choices are constrained by reality (so this is simply not the powerful insight that dmb thinks it is). But how far do these constraints go? The MOQ says, mu. It denies that the world is a collection of subjects and objects, and so denies the underlying premise of the original question. Best, Steve 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
