Hi All --
Rose and I were away on a relaxing vacation in the Berkshires for a few
days,
while you folks stretched this topic into yet another week. There were 176
messages in my e-mail box when we returned today, at least half of them on
the Free Will dilemma. It's enough to make a grown man cry!
Joe was sticking with his "IMHO" that "only the emotional level processes
DQ. Indefinable emotions create the values for the hues of our choice for
the intellectual level."
Steve was saying that "Determinism is denied with a world composed of
nothing but value, and it is meaningless to add the word 'free' in claiming
'free will'." I think that's metaphysically significant.
Craig tried to reduce the issue to three questions:
1) Is there a real (as opposed to illusionary) experience that we
call "free will"?
2) If so, is 'free will' a good term to describe this experience?
3) Also if so, is the traditional explanation or an explanation in
MoQ terms better?
His conclusion: "3) is the issue we should work on."
Dmb said:
...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.
Ian may have unwittingly put his finger on the crux of this dilemma when he
said:
We cannot solve our problems with the same kind of
argumentation that created them. (With apologies to Einstein.)
The "argumentation" that has created the Free Will problem is stated as
follows by the MoQ author:
"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."
What Pirsig is telling us is that there is no Free Will. The logic here is
elementary, once it is realized that behavior must be controlled by either
"static patterns" or Dynamic Quality. The phrase "to the extent that one
follows" does not allow for preference OR choice, since if one does not
follow DQ his behavior necessarily is controlled by SQ. In other words,
there are no options to "Quality Control".
The issue is not an argument about Determinism vs. Free Will--even though
MoQ's Quality determines actions. It's an argument about "dogma";
specifically, the doctrine that there is no free agent. And this is what is
so repulsive to people like me who not only believe in Freedom but who view
the world as designed explicitly for man's (autonomous) realization of
Value. In the absence of individual freedom, human existence has no
meaning. Man's perceptions, emotional responses, preferences, moral and
intellectual judgments, creativity, and ultimate destiny are all controlled
by a cosmic force called Quality.
This is not what the Creator had in mind. And it's not what Mr. Pirsig
wanted to say in so many words, hence the euphemism "to the extent that one
follows". But let's not mince words or fudge meanings when it comes to
understanding his principle. Either we are free to carry out our lives in
accordance with our value sensibility or we are slaves to an involuntary
existence.
Valuistically yours,
Ham
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
