Hello everyone On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:15 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Dan: The difference is subtle, I agree. If I choose to do something, I do it. I choose steak for dinner. And I eat a steak dinner. If I prefer to do something, I might do it. Or I might not. I prefer steak for dinner. But I have salmon instead. Isn't that what RMP is on about? dmb: > 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: It is a big difference, I agree. Yet there are subtleties involved as well. > > > 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. Dan: Yes it is possible I am plain wrong. Still, I prefer not to get into a shit-sling with anyone. But, it isn't what I said... it is what RMP said (and I notice you've snipped the quotes from my original post, heaven knows why... maybe you didn't feel they are important?): "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." Dan comments: He is saying specifically that one's behavior is without choice when controlled by static patterns of quality. His wording, not mine. Now, if you want to make a case that preference and choice are the same, okay. But I have to disagree. He doesn't say "without preference" in the above quote. He says "without choice." There is a difference. >dmb: > 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. Dan: Yes, that's right. The MOq states that the four levels don't work in harmony... in fact, they oppose each other. And this is where the matter of choice or preference seems to illuminate how our lives unfold. We don't choose to follow static patterns of quality. When we follow them, we are without choice. We may prefer not to do as the law prescribes but there are consequences. Courts and prisons are proof of that. dmb: 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. Dan: Yes, I agree with this. Except that Lila is the one in control. She's always been in control. >dmb: > 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. Dan: You'd be amazed what I can do with a cheap piece of meat. Seriously. I may prefer a choice cut but I dislike paying ten bucks a pound for it. Give me a big cheap piece of meat, a large bunch of vegetables and herbs, a sharp knife and a good-size pot, about six hours, and I will feed you a bowl of the best stew you ever had... pure Quality. I don't know how I do it, but I do. You see, Dynamic Quality has no direction. You pick it up as you go along. It is a feeling of what's better that drives us. And what is better for me might not be better for you. Our history is different. dmb: > 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. Dan: When we follow static patterns of quality, we are without choice. Marriage is a social pattern of quality predicated on monogamy. There is no choice involved once two people are married. But, sex is a biological urge that sometimes overrides the social pattern of quality known as marriage, usually with disastrous results... to wit Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, etc. Within the framework of the MOQ, this is seen as immoral. Now, you may say: I choose to have sex with other people even though I am married. But you are not following the static pattern of quality known as marriage. Sex, the Dynamic Quality of biology, is driving your desires and usurping a higher level of quality. It is more a compulsion than a choice. And it is immoral. dmb: 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. Dan: Well, I don't know. The quote I offered above seems pretty specific and can be seen as a formula telling us where constraint and freedom are found. But yes, we each have to interpret that for ourselves. And likely as not, we will rationalize any immoral acts that we commit as our choice. dmb: 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 MOQ 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. Dan: Of course. But how do we know? We construct a dialogue as we go along telling us which experiences are important and which are not. We grow up knowing that we have choices. We are told so. And when someone comes along and tells us that no, we do not have choices in every day static quality life, we reject that as incorrect. Of course we have choices! dmb: We have goals and purposes and sometimes we can overcome the felt resistances sometimes we cannot. In that sense, success 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. Dan: Yes. RMP informs us that our dialogue, which informs us we have choices when we follow static quality patterns of quality, is a dysfunctional dialogue. It doesn't work that way. Not in real life. Not empirically. The MOQ gives us a functional dialogue to replace it. I prefer RMP's formula, but you are free to choose. 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
