dmb said to Steve:
Like I already pointed out, Sam does not deny that we are responsible for our
actions. The "Free Will" that he does deny is a metaphysical notion.
Steve replied:
You've insisted that causality is metaphysical notion, and free will is a
concept that is based on causality, so I can't see how you can make this move
to distinguish a metaphysical versus a non-metaphysical conception of free
will. Plus, since you are interpreting Pirsig to be supporting free will as the
capacity to respond to DQ, and since DQ is a metaphysical concept, then free
will in your take on Pirisg must also be a metaphysical notion.
dmb says:
Free will is based on causality? DQ is a metaphysical concept? Well, I guess
this would be another major source of confusion. Not sure how many times I've
said it already but I know it's quite a lot. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT FREE WILL
AS A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT, except you. You are projecting this metaphysical
dimension onto my assertions despite the fact that I have said otherwise at
least a dozen times.
And I have also been saying over and over again that the will is practical and
empirical. AND Dynamic Quality is not metaphysical either. It is called the
immediate flux of life, direct everyday experience and the primary EMPIRICAL
reality.
On top of that, we are talking about free will in the MOQ, wherein causality
has be removed and value put in it's place and Pirsig's claim that value goes
all the way down as a postulate.
Given all these basic errors, it's no wonder that communicating has been so
difficult.
Please hear it, Steve. I've told you this over and over again. The question of
free will is not a metaphysical question. It's a practical and empirical
question and Pirsig's answer is also practical and empirical. I AM NOT TALKING
ABOUT METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES. The extent to which you are adding that unwanted
ingredient to this debate is the extent to which this debate becomes pointless
shadow boxing because you're talking to NOBODY's point.
Steve said:
When we talk about moral responsibility, Harris says we are talking about the
blameworthiness of those holding bad intentions. Harris wrote, "To say that I
was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was
sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to
be considered an extension of them." It sounds to me that now that you perhaps
understand that Harris was intending to be making the case that moral
responsibility _doesn't_ die with free will ...
dmb says:
Those are the same lines I pulled out of the Harris quote. I think it's clear
that he is describing a practical, non-metaphysical version of human agency. If
your actions are a continuation of your intentions and goals then those actions
are an expression of your will. Bad intentions are the whole difference between
an immoral act and mere accidents or a causal chain of events. It seems pretty
clear to me that Sam's book is a confusing and inappropriate way to get at the
meaning of Pirsig's reformulation AND I think you are misreading him anyway.
The lines above describe what it means to be responsible for our actions and
since this is a non-metaphysical claim, this responsibility does not depend on
any metaphysical entities, which is what Sam is rejecting when he rejects "Free
Will". I think you are confusing these two things. Sam uses "Free Will" to
identify this rejected metaphysical notion and he asserts a kind of
neurological determinism. The MOQ is not asserting determi
nism, and so you take Sam's reasoning over to the MOQ so that the freedom we
do have there comes out as quite meaningless and inert. In effect, you mix
these two incompatible positions and then conclude there can be no free will
whatsoever, not even in the MOQ as a practical and empirical concept.
I'm trying to be patient here, Steve, but my frustration is probably leaking
through anyway. At this point, it takes a lot of restraint to stop myself from
being very, very frank. Please, hear this without the fireworks.
I'm begging and pleading. Please, will you kindly shut the fuck up about
metaphysical entities? Seriously. As long as you do that, you're simply not
talking to me. You're simply not listening. You're talking to nobody.
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
