dmb said:
...That's WHY Pirsig REPLACES causality with patterns of preference, because
that switch denies the central premise of scientific determinism. It takes the
law-like mechanical obedience out of the picture even at the "physical" level -
and even less so for evolved creatures like us. This switch introduces choice
even among the most predictable and regular patterns we know of and the range
of freedom only increases from there.
Dan replied:
Lets consult LILA in an effort to clear things up. This is what RMP says about
replacing causality with value: "The only difference between causation and
value is that the word "cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied
meaning of "value" is one of preference." Note that he states THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE... he says nothing about introducing choice, only preference.
dmb says:
He says nothing about choice, only preference? To have a choice means that you
can choose or decide when faced with two or more options. It means you can
express your preference for one of the options over the others. I mean, given
the meaning of the terms "choice" and "preference", it seems quite strange to
embrace one and reject the other. Their definitions aren't exactly the same but
I can't see any important difference between those terms.
As I read it, my claim and the Pirsig quote say exactly the same. Where I said
causality refers to a law-like mechanical obedience, Pirsig says causation
implies absolute certainty. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. Where
I said the switch to preferences introduces freedom and choice even among the
most predictable patterns, Pirsig says the implied meaning of "value" is one of
preference - as opposed to the absolute law-like certainty. We can easily say
that is the only difference between causation and values and still say it's a
very BIG difference with very big implications.
Dan said:
The way I read this, the switch from causality to value does not introduce
choice. It introduces preference. Choice implies certainty, which is not a
matter of preference. RMP clearly states that when our behavior is controlled
by static patterns of quality we are WITHOUT choice.
dmb says:
Value does not introduce choice? Choice implies certainty? Are you pulling my
leg? At this point I have to ask what you mean by the word "choice" because I
think you're just plain wrong here. Choice is what you get when the certainty
of causality is removed. Making a choice is an expression of our preferences.
To choose is to select one option among other options.
Steve keeps saying that it makes no sense to say we choose our values because
we ARE our values. But this seems to assume that there are no conflicts between
our values, as if we can follow biological values and intellectual values
without any contradictions or tensions, as if we are monolithic or fully
harmonized, as if we were determined by our values instead of the laws of
causality. This just puts us right back into the determinist soup again. This
removes richness and complexity and the unpredictable Dynamic component too. As
Pirsig paints it in the larger picture, everybody is engaged in struggle with
the patterns of their own lives. Lila's battle is everybody's battle, he says.
The captain is dominated by intellectual values while Richard Rigel is
dominated by social level values and Lila is mostly limited to biological
values - and she suffers greatly for it. Her options are extremely limited -
the captain guesses she'll end up in church life or a mental hospital, if
not the grave. Rigel is just one of those keep-your-nose-clean types. He's
the one who will likely take Lila to church to get her all cleaned up - and
considering her extremely low status, that would be an improvement. Rigel has a
larger range of options than Lila but he's more or less limited to social level
conventions and morals. The captain is a hyper-intellectual but he's also
really looking forward to the openness of the ocean, which is a very nice
metaphor for DQ.
Quality is what you like. We prefer the choice cuts of meat in the butcher shop
window and we are willing to pay more for them. This is static and even
routine. But following DQ means we are led forward by a dim apprehension of we
know not what. It just seem like the right direction even if we don't see where
it's going to lead us. Quality is what you like in that case too.
As a practical, everyday matter we are constantly making choices because our
values are so often in conflict with one another. We cannot simply follow these
static patterns because they would lead us in several different directions at
once. I mean, a married person cannot indulge in novel nookie and at the same
time choose to be faithful. These options are mutually exclusive and so we have
to choose one or the other even though, on some level, we value both. And so it
is with the whole jungle of preferences, wherein we struggle with value
conflicts in many subtle and complex ways. That's why we can't have a formula
that prescribes exactly where freedom and constraint is to be found. That has
to be balanced and negotiated by living beings like us. The rejection of SOM
means that consciousness is a living process rather than a substance or entity
that preforms this task. People and thoughts and judgements do not evaporate
with the rejection of the Cartesian self. Instead, the M
OQ says that the self exists as a living process and that freedom evolves as a
result of that process. Here was are talking about the concrete activities of
human beings who are not only composed of evolved static values but also
capable of perceiving and adjusting to Dynamic Quality. And let us not forget
that DQ is "direct everyday experience" or "the immediate flux of life" or what
you know directly and immediately prior to intellectual abstractions or verbal
descriptions, prior to the static patterns that follow. Freedom and restraint
are known and felt directly in this actual living process, in the concrete
experiences that we suffer and enjoy, that we go through. And it is NOT just
that we have a FEELING of agency, a feeling of expressing our will. From
direct, ordinary experience we know that we can act in the world and those
actions have real effects. We have goals and purposes and sometimes we can
overcome the felt resistances sometimes we cannot. In that sense, suc
cess and failure as well as freedom and constraint are the actual realities to
be explained by our philosophical views and descriptions. That's the empirical
reality to which are ideas must answer. This is the concrete reality to be
explained and that's exactly what Pirsig re-formulation does. Those terms refer
to us, to our reality, to experience as we know it.
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
