On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > You are bending over backwards to disagree with me. I most certainly did NOT > say that questions about freedom and constraint don't make sense in the MOQ. > ... It reformulates the question in terns of sq and DQ rather than in terms > of the will of an free subject. ... You have just snipped out from the above > quote that you are responding to where I said back in April, "...We can > identify with our current patterns of preferences and the extent to which we > do so we are not free. We are a slave to our preferences. Rather we ARE our > preferences. Or we can identify with the capacity to generate, sustain, or > destroy existing patterns in favor of (we hope) new and better ones. To the > extent we do we are free." And then, as if you were teaching me a lesson, > you quote this to me "In Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small" > self. Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." Now isn't > that exactly what I just said??? > > dmb says: > You're still not getting it, Steve. The part of the quote that you put back > in does not help you. You're making the same crucial mistake in that part > too, or rather it's just another way to assert the same position that I'm > complaining. I think "value determinism" is a good name for it. > > Your reasoning goes roughly like this: 1) The small self is made of static > patterns. 2) We are not free to the extent that we are controlled by static > patterns. And then the invalid leap is, in your words, 3) "we are not free. > We are a slave to our preferences".
Steve: As soon as I said that I corrected it, "Rather we ARE our preferences." But of course you snipped that because it is easier to misrepresent what I said. Also, in your 3), the "we" here is just small self. "We can identify with our current patterns of preferences and the extent to which we do so we are not free." dmb: > The assumption behind this leap seems to be that since the small self isn't > anything above and beyond the patterns, then the extent to which we are > controlled by static patterns must be 100%. Steve: Pretty much Did you notice the "extent to which we do" part? Small self is nothing other than a collection of static patterns. The extent to which small self is controlled by static patterns is better put as the fact that small self literally IS the static patterns. (It doesn't make any sense to say we are controlled by our values (as you keep trying to portray me as saying) when we ARE our values.) This is only true TO THE EXTENT THAT and ONLY to the extent that we identify with small self. But that's not the whole picture... dmb: That's why I call it "value determinism". Steve: Yes, I noticed how self-satisfied you are about that one, but it is an oxymoron. We do what we value doing, we do what we want, we do what we like. That is what it means for us to be our values and is pretty much the opposite of opting for the determinism horn of the SOM dilemma which says that we do what we are caused by mechanistic forces to do. The only caveat here which prevents the MOQ from affirming the free will horn of the SOM dilemma (besides denial of the underlying premise of the Cartesian self) is that though we act on our values we (as small self) don't CHOOSE to value what we value since we ARE our values, so it doesn't make sense to say that in addition to be capable of willing acts this willing is somehow free of something. dmb: > Then there is the Big Self, right? Apparently, you're taking the Dynamic self > as something completely separate from the preferences to which we are slaves. Steve: Why do you insist on calling small self a slave? Small self is not a slave his preferences. Small self literally IS his preferences. dmb: Apparently, you seem to think there would be no overlap if the small self and Big self (sq&DQ) were represented in a Venn diagram, as if it's all slavery and control in the little circle and it's all freedom in the big circle. Steve: Yes, that is exactly how I see it. Or maybe one big circle divided into two parts. dmb: As I imagine it, the small self exists entirely within the Big Self and there is nothing but overlap. Steve: Good for you. Is the rest of the world under some obligation to imagine it the way that you imagine it? dmb: We are both at the same time and these are conceptual distinctions, not distinct metaphysical compartments. Steve: Wrong. DQ/sq is definitely intended as a metaphysical distinction. dmb: Quality is what you like, what you prefer and static quality are stable patterns of preference, not a prison to be escaped from. These patterns are what increase your capacity to respond freely. DQ and sq are both Quality, after all. Steve: Sure. DQ/sq is how Pirsig divides Quality. In Zen terms it is equivalent to diving self into Big Self/small self. > Steve said: > "Dependent self" means that it depends on something. It doesn't mean > "controlled like a slave," but it does mean "not free," i.e., not DQ. > dmb says: > But Steve, you JUST said, to put it in your own words, that "we are not free. > We are a slave to our preferences". You seemed to think that both things were > true five minutes ago and both sentences mean the same thing anyway. Steve: Yeah, and as soon as I said that I amended it by saying, "Rather we ARE our preferences." It isn't correct to say we are controlled by our preferences when we ARE our preferences. dmb: Why do you want to backtrack on your own words AND assert what is plainly nonsense anyway. I mean, is there any important difference between the claim that "we're not free" and "we are slaves"? Isn't that just what slave means, not free? Steve: Oh, right, so we are not talking about free will versus determinism but rather the classic philosophical dilemma of free will versus slavery. Right. EXACTLY the same. How could I possibly object to that terminology? And backtrack? I have said from the start that we ARE our preferences rather than being determined by our preferences. That is nothing new and no backtrack. This is a perfect example of why you are so toxic to this discussion group. All you offer us is heat and no light. 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
