Steve said to dmb:
.., you accuse me of setting up a straw man. But that straw man is what pretty
much everyone takes free will to mean. Consult any dictionary on the subject.
You've insisted to Marsha that she use standard dictionary definitions, but
Pirsig's redefinition of free will as the capacity to respond to DQ is not at
all what is typically meant by the term. Why can't you admit that?
dmb says:
Well, this is another version of the confusion that I was explaining in the
other post. My computer's dictionary defines free will as "the power of acting
without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own
discretion." Pirsig does not redefine this concept nor does he deny us the
power. He simply gives us a different explanation as the the nature of this
power to act freely and a different explanation as to the nature of the
constraints. And of course that is not what people typically mean BUT we are
talking about what PIRSIG MEANS. We're talking about the MOQ, not the typical
person's view. Since nobody is defending this typical view, I fail to see the
purpose of constantly inserting into the discussion. Since nobody is defending
it and I have repeatedly and explicitly explained that I am not either, is
really unfair to call it a straw man? I honestly don't see how that's unfair. I
think the constant re-insertion of the traditional view is what's un
fair. And it confuses things too.
Steve said:
When Pirsig reformulated the question of freedom, what he described is not some
faculty to be excessed or not. It is not the thing deep within each soul that
adjudicates between competing values. It is not the possession of a person who
can claim to have it. It is the groundstuff of reality. This concept is so
different from the SOM concept of free will that it would be better not to use
that term to avoid confusion. Let's just call it DQ.
dmb says:
NOBODY here is saying that freedom depends on a soul, Steve. Nobody. But Pirsig
says ONE is free to the extent that ONE follows DQ. He defines the self, this
"one", as a complex mix of static patterns with the CAPACITY to respond to DQ.
Would you deny it that if I called it a "faculty" instead of a "capacity" or
"ability"? Why does any claim to freedom of the will necessarily entail
commitment to metaphysical realism or some particular theological position? You
really don't see how ridiculously paralyzing that would be? Again, freedom is
not the exclusive property of SOMers. There is no good reason why we can't talk
about the extent of our freedom and responsibility within the terms of the MOQ.
It's values and morals and dharma and karma all over the place. It's all quite
central to the total vision. Sorry, but I really think your position on the use
of these terms is way too rigid and loaded up with baggage. It adds confusion
that is totally unnecessary. It's been nothing bu
t trouble. It ain't working. Just make a note of the fact that we are NOT
discussing souls or Homunculi. Just make a note of the fact that we are
discussing the extent of freedom for the MOQ's self. If you do that, nobody
will have to mention the traditional version of the dilemma ever again. Man,
wouldn't that be sweet?
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
