Steve said:
Causality is of course a form of preference or a species of value as is
_everything in the MOQ_. I get that. I really really do. This doesn't mean we
need to throw out the word and are making use of the word in a radically
different way when that others won't understand when, say, you use the word
beCAUSE above.
dmb says:
NO, Steve. You're still missing the point. Causality is NOT a form of
preference or a species of value. I'm saying that such a statement is logically
impossible. Given the meaning of the terms "causality" and "preference", that
statement is nonsense. It literally makes no sense. Let me make this point in
an excessive pedantic way, okay, and then I'll get to your second point about
throwing out the word. (Which I never suggested and explicitly denied at least
once already.)
Given the meaning of the term, "causality" says that each event unfolds
mechanically and in a law-like way. If we act on the basis of such causes our
behavior is just a kind of mechanical obedience no different in kind from the
behavior of a billiard ball or a tornado.
Given the meaning of the term "preference", actions are always a matter of some
choice, even if the range of options may be very, very narrow at the inorganic
level.
Given the meaning of these terms, causality and preference are mutually
exclusive and that's why causality is REPLACED by preference rather than being
a form or species of it. To say that preference is a species of causality is
like saying what I "want" is a form of what I "must do" regardless of what I
want. It's like saying choice is a species of obedience to the law. Like I
said, it literally makes no sense.
This is why I keep saying that "preferences" REPLACE "causality" in the MOQ.
This is not a request to strike the term from the english language. It's about
getting rid of a metaphysical concept BECAUSE of the way it denies freedom and
substitute it with a term that does not deny choice or freedom. I'd also point
out that causality in this sense refers to the laws of cause and effect. It's a
physicalist concept but there are other kinds of "causes" that do not operate
in such a law like way and so there is still plenty of room for the word. We
could say, "I did it BECAUSE I felt like it." "I loved the book BECAUSE it was
richly rewarding and yet I read it without too much difficulty". These sorts of
statements have nothing to do with causal relations and there is no implication
of determinism.
Very often the word simply refers to the reasons or motives for our choices.
And in that sense, we do this or belief that "because" it expresses our
preferences. But there are no laws of "because" and effect.
Steve:
...Why not follow Pirsig in dropping all talk of will and instead just talk
about freedom re-described in terms of DQ as you did in the above? Why keep
insisting that I am wrong in thinking that the MOQ denies free will when it is
clear even from what you wrote above that the ancient notion of "free will" is
no where to be found in the MOQ as it is based on the SOM premise that the MOQ
rejects?
dmb says:
If it's clear from what I wrote that the MOQ rejects the ancient notion of free
will then obviously I'm talking about a different kind of free will and there
is no need to keep bringing up the metaphysical entity that nobody is
defending. I'm simply talking about the ability to express preferences, to make
choices, to decide. The MOQ says man is the measure of all things, a
participant in the creation of all things and the passage we're looking at is
about whether or not chemistry professors can act independently or if he is
determined by the same laws that govern the atoms in his body. This is about
people and their everyday experiences. Freedom and restraint aren't just
abstract concepts. We meet resistances every day, all day, and we overcome them
or we are defeated. This can including anything from moving rocks to writing on
metaphysics. One can't even make toast in the morning without knowing both
freedom and restraint. According to the MOQ, static pattens don't change b
y themselves. It takes a living being to do that. To take the person out of
this equation would leave us with the absurd claim that nothing in particular
is responding to DQ, nothing is migrating toward freedom. I mean, the MOQ's
rejection of the Cartesian self is not meant to deny the existence of people or
their freedom. The whole idea here is that philosophy should serve life, that
ideas that do not serve life are not very good ideas. And determinism does not
serve life. It's a moral nightmare precisely because it denies freedom and
morality. The MOQ presents a very different picture wherein everything is an
ethical activity and a march toward freedom.
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
