Steve, I liked your re-formulation of this issue and I believe you are on the right track with pointing out that the normal understanding of the hot stove issue, actually contradicts the normal understanding of free will.
Steve: Most people would count hopping off a hot stove as an > involuntary reflex rather than an exercise of will. John: I guess I don't count as "most people". I illustrated my problems with this analogy some time back with my explication of four different illustrations of hot stoves and people jumping off of them, staying on them, or in general reacting according to their specific circumstances. But at this time, I'd like to say that I think there might be more to be untangled in your "involuntary reflex" and "exercise of will". For one thing, what is a reflex? Rocks don't have them, but amoebas do. It's a function of a cell, then. A matter of levels - specifically, comparing the 2nd level with the 4th. Exercising one's will is a matter of intellect, no? Whereas jumping off stoves is usually a matter of biological reaction. But what we term "involuntary" on the part of our cells, might be seen completely differently when viewed from the perspective of this organic matrix - the 2nd level. And thus this little conundrum, rather than being an argument for or against free will, is really an illustration of different levels of willing. Biological choices exhibit a "will" to live, to continue to be and avoid damage that is of a completely different kind than an intellectual choice. What I mean by "free" then, is that faculty which is beyond the merely biological or social pattern urges, which stands apart and chooses whether or not to follow them blindly. This is what I call, "reason" - logic tempered by emotion. (or emotion tempered by logic) - a dualistic way of thinking that encompasses both sides at once - romantic and classic - and thus is FREE to choose. And as an aside, even apart from any urge of my own to argue and convince, I want to say that I appreciate your thinking here, which has helped me to clarify my own thoughts in my own head. Yay Steve! > The free intent dictionary defines will as "The mental faculty by > which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action." > Clearly hopping off a hot stove is not a deliberate choice for a > course of action, so it isn't willed. Therefore, ionic again, I think > "free will" is a bad choice of terminology for what he is getting at > with his new conception of freedom as Dynamic Quality. > > John: I think the hot stove analogy only works as an illustration of DQ, if the levels are kept discrete in understanding. Cells follow their own sense of betterness in their own way, independent of any intellectual will. Does that make more sense? And now, I have to go. You may return to your regular discussion. Busy John 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
