Hello everyone
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve replied to Dave:
>> I don't disagree with Pirsig or the dictionary as far as the "classic
>> dilemma."
>>I disagree with how YOU think this dilemma could possibly still come up in the
>>MOQ while Pirsig specifically says this dilemma does not come up in the MOQ!
Dan:
I think Steve is taking the quote out of context here by stating the
dilemma doesn't come up. From LILA:
"A third puzzle illuminated by the Metaphysics of Quality is the
ancient "free will vs. determinism controversy." Determinism is the
philosophic doctrine that man, like all other objects in the universe,
follows fixed scientific laws, and does so without exception. Free
will is the philosophic doctrine that man makes choices independent of
the atoms of his body.
"This battle has been a very long and very loud one because an
abandonment of either position has devastating logical consequences.
If the belief in free will is abandoned, morality must seemingly also
be abandoned under a subject-object metaphysics. If man follows the
cause-and-effect laws of substance, then man cannot really choose
between right and wrong.
"On the other hand, if the determinists let go of their position it
would seem to deny the truth of science. If one adheres to a
traditional scientific metaphysics of substance, the philosophy of
determinism is an inescapable corollary. If "everything" is included
in the class of "substance and its properties," and if "substance and
its properties" is included in the class of "things that always follow
laws," and if "people" are included in the class "everything," then it
is an airtight logical conclusion that people always follow the laws
of substance.
"To be sure, it doesn't seem as though people blindly follow the laws
of substance in everything they do, but within a Deterministic
explanation that is just another one of those illusions that science
is forever exposing. All the social sciences, including anthropology,
were founded on the bedrock metaphysical belief that these physical
cause-and-effect laws of human behavior exist. Moral laws, if they can
be said to exist at all, are merely an artificial social code that has
nothing to do with the real nature of the world. A "moral" person acts
conventionally, "watches out for the cops," "keeps his nose clean,"
and nothing more.
"In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. 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." [Robert
Pirsig, LILA]
Dan comments:
When RMP states that the dilemma doesn't come up, he is saying that
determinism and free will are both illusions based on extenuating
circumstances arising from both a preconditioned point of view ("a
traditional scientific metaphysics of substance") and the undefined (a
Dynamic point of view).
What Steve seems to be saying is: dilemma solved... no more need to
talk about it. But it isn't solved so much as it is reformulated. And
there is every reason to further explore this line of inquiry, to
build upon it and expand it. But that means letting go of some
preconceived notions of which we are all very fond of, like the notion
of free will.
>
> Ron:
> Bob specifically states that when we follow Dynamic Quality we are free. He
> states that natural selection
> aka evolution is dynamic quality at work, which is what touched this whole
> pissing match off.
Dan:
Not exactly. RMP states that TO THE EXTENT one follows Dynamic
Quality, one's BEHAVIOR is free. Our behavior being free doesn't
necessarily mean we are free. That is the illusion, or the
dysfunctional narrative we tell ourselves over and over again until we
believe it. And when we discover to our chagrin that the freedom of
drinking nothing but single-malt whiskey has led to our liver becoming
diseased and our imminent demise, we become intimately aware of the
dysfunctionality of the narrative we've been living.
>Ron:
>
> What you Steve seem to insist on, is that free-will or dynamic quality as
> re-named by Pirsigs
> MoQ, can not be or should not be talked about. Yet we see how he connects the
> two concepts
> not as diametrically opposed but as a cohesive total explanation.
> What would be a more relevent and meaningful discussion on the MD but a
> discussion involving
> deterministic static patterns and their freedom to evolve?
Dan:
Dynamic Quality is to be kept concept-free. That doesn't mean we
cannot talk about "it" in meaningful ways, it is true. Otherwise, why
waste so much time in LILA doing just that? But we have to remember
that we can only define Dynamic Quality by what it is not, and not by
what it is.
To the extent one follows the undefined, they are free. This is very
powerful stuff. How does a person go about following that which is not
this, not that?
>Ron:
> How does the denial and rejection of a dilemma ever solved or "dissolved"? not
> by avoiding it
> or ignoring it as a non-issue but by it's explanation, and the power that lies
> in Pirsigs MoQ
> is explanitory not negation.
Dan:
Yes, we agree.
>Ron:
> The Dilemma is disolved by explanation, not ignoring the debate entirely as
> meaningless.
>
> Only rigid pricks do that.
Dan:
Well, just because a person has a rigid prick doesn't necessarily mean
they are a rigid prick. Right?
Thank you,
Dan
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
