Hello everyone On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Dan: >> >> I think Steve is taking the quote out of context here by stating the >> dilemma doesn't come up. From LILA: >> > ... >> "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. > > Steve: > That's not what I mean to say.
Dan: Oh. I did get that impression from reading your posts. I am sorry if I was in error. > > Dan: >>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. > > > Steve: > But I agree that this problem gets reformulated. The question of free > will versus determinism gets replaced by the question, to what extent > do we follow DQ and to what extent do we follow sq? The one dilemma > gets dissolved but is replaced by another puzzler. The difference in > our views may be the extent to which we still see a concept that is > similar enough to the traditional notion of free in the re-formulation > to warrant maintaining the old SOM term in talking about what we want > to talk about without being misunderstood. Dan: Possibly. This is tricky stuff to be sure. I am unsure though if your reformulation works; it seems to be mutually exclusive in regards to the extent one follows Dynamic Quality or to who's behavior is controlled by static quality patterns. Within the framework of the MOQ, it is not an exclusive, either/or proposition but rather both. From a static quality, conventional point of view, both free will and determinism are seen as correct. From a Dynamic point of view, both free will and determinism are illusions, the result of a dysfunctional narrative in which we have come to believe. . >Steve: > What I thinks tend to go on with the way the term free will gets used > in these parts is that it gets slipped in the back door as the extent > to which behavior is a response to DQ, but then it reverts back to the > SOM notion of free will once inside. So I think it would be better to > drop the term from the MOQ vocabulary and maintain it only as an SOM > term worth criticizing. Dan: Like subjects and objects, free will and determinism are useful intellectual patterns of quality as long as we understand the shorthand meaning behind them. To criticize and condemn the notion of free will is to ignore a good deal of what RMP has to say in LILA, does it not? 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
