On Aug 7, 2011, at 1:19 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Steve said to Ham: > I wonder if Dennett takes determinism as the belief that natural laws are > true as a metaphysical assertion or a pragmatic one. If the latter I agree > with Dennett and in some weak sense a "determinist." If we take determinism > to mean that there is a degree of predictability about the world, then few > would deny it. But this is not how Pirsig defined determinism as the doctrine > that "man follows the cause-and-effect laws of substance." I deny that sort > of determinism along with Pirsig. Note also that reality is Quality, then > even substances don't follow the cause and effect laws of substance but > rather exercise preference. > > > dmb says: > These are the sorts of comments that make me think it would be reasonable to > describe your positions as a kind of value determinism.
Marsha: Make you think? Good one! Do you really think that what comes to your mind for whatever random reason is significant? Especially when it meant not to explain, but to complain... > dmb says: > Or maybe even better, a kind of soft determinism, a.k.a. old school > compatibilism. Marsha: La-de-da.... > dmb says: > Didn't you post that famous Schopenhauer line? "Man can do what he wills but > he cannot will what he wills". Marsha: Want to explain the horror of such a quote. > dmb: > And doesn't Sam Harris's neurological determinism make the same basic claim? > "In other words", Wiki puts it, ", although an agent may often be free to act > according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined." Sam's > version would say those motives are a product of the brain. But Wiki also > says.... Marsha: And? > dmb: > "Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively > (William James's term). James accused them of creating a "quagmire of > evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying > determinism. Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word > jugglery." Ted Honderich explains that the mistake of Compatibilism is to > assert that nothing changes as a consequence of determinism, when clearly we > have lost the life-hope of origination." And? Your point? Compatibilism was brought up by Ron. How does it relate to this post? > dmb: > That pretty well reflect my complaint about your position, wherein freedom > becomes quite meaningless and inert, a mere involuntary reflex action. Marsha: I thought the discussion was about free will. Since you are using the word "freedom", what exact definition are you meaning by its use. My hardcopy Random House College Dictionary has 16 different meanings for the word 'freedom'. Please present in what exact sense you are using word. Both of you and Steve should be more precise with your words. > dmb says: > You're free to hold this view, of course, but it is going to clash with the > MOQ in a very big way because of the way the whole things pivots around > freedom as the engine and goal of all evolutionary development. Marsha: Huh? Lovely pile of meadow muffins. > dmb syas: > That is hardly meaningless or inert. This Quality doesn't just get you off > hot stoves. It is the source and substance of everything, the ongoing > stimulus that created the world, every last bit of it, Pirsig says. Marsha: How did you travel this road of reasoning? > dmb: > Think about the meaning of "involuntary" action as opposed to action that is > natural and spontaneous. I think you'd be making a mistake to a presume that > our actions are either taken on the basis or rational deliberation or they > are as automatic as the heartbeat or breathing. Marsha: I agree that the introduction or the word, without explanation, makes the use of 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' confusing. My dictionary contains 8 definitions for 'voluntary'. This could be rectified by explanation. But, dmb, you are no one to complain about sloppy use of language. You could have asked Steve to explain his use, rather than jumping to your w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. Have you ever heard of the use of a question for clarification, rather than sarcasm and ridicule? > dmb: > There are more than two options here, you know? Marsha: Might have been a good time to list all the alternative options you can think of. > dmb: > And I'm guessing that you want to frame the issue around the hot stove > example because then you can sort of dismiss DQ as a biological reflex action. Marsha: Your guessing? Another good one! > dmb: > But when we pose the question in terms of Pirsig's most sustained and > elaborate example, fixing motorcycles with artistry and writing excellent > essays, this kind of physiological reductionism will get you nowhere fast. > Being a slave to your biological impulses simply isn't the same thing as > unpremeditated spontaneity. That's the mistake that the hippies made, > according to Pirsig. They confused DQ with biological sq, he says. Because > neither of them is social or intellectual, they were taken to be the same > thing. > Marsha: Unrelatable pontificating. ___ 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
