From Lila's Child:
Hugo: "In my view, "free will" is a term that can only be used of
self-conscious (self reflective) creatures. "Will" is a term we may use
of any organism- of any autonomous entity- describing the goal involved
in autonomy. And "free will" is the ability to change that goal; the
ability of the autonomous entity to chose between more than one
predetermined (as for that entity) goal" (p 216)
Pirsig's response:"Traditionally, this is the meaning of free will. But
the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels with increasing
freedom to make choices as one ascends the levels. At the lowest
inorganic level, the freedom is so small that it can be said that nature
follows laws but the quantum theory shows that within the laws the
freedom is still there..." (Annotn 75)
Andre:
The same can be said of the freedom existing at the organic level(Law of
the Jungle) the social level (the Law) and the intellectual level (
'...nearly complete choice, e.g. what I believe to be true) and to
complete freedom at the Dynamic 'Code of Art' level. (Anthony's PhD, p 137)
It seems to me that Pirsig has 're-contextualized' the expression of
freedom or the will to be free in terms of preference and probability.
In this way one can argue that "The MOQ puts an end to this ancient
freewill vs. determinism controversy by showing that both preference and
probability are subsets of value..."(ibid)
On p222 of Lila's Child, Bodvar asks: "If the world is composed of
values, then who is doing the valuing?
Let me re-phrase this and place it in this debate: to what extent is
_our_ behavior free/determined? Do we have '_individual_' freedom?(this
is Ham's catch cry) or as Steve (to Arlo) would put it:"... but I wonder
if you'd agree with me that in your second way of understanding free
will as a useful or not useful concept, it no longer makes much sense to
wonder if _we_ _have_ it.".
Pirsig's response to Bodvar: "This is a subtle slip back into
subject-object thinking. Values have bee converted to a kind of object
in this sentence, and then the question is asked, "If values are an
object,then where is the subject?" The answer is found in the MOQ
sentence,"It is not Lila who has values, it is values that have
Lila."Both the subject and the object are patterns of value."( Annotn 76).
To further clarify:
"It's important to remember that both science and Eastern religions
regard "the individual" as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of
speech. If you start assigning concrete reality to it, you will find
yourself in a philosophic quandary".( Annotn 77)
"There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the patterns.
This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind', 'people', 'the
public' and even such pronouns as 'I', 'he', and 'they'. Our language is
so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
'substance' they can be used as long as it is remembered that they are
terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary
reality of their own". (LILA, p158) (Sorry Ham)
The freewill vs determinism debate can better be restated in terms of
preference and probability (which, as Pirsig says, are subsets of
value). This makes much more sense, also from an evolutionary
perspective where "...Pirsig's particular perception of the universe's
evolution [is seen] as being primarily an evolution of values...". (
Anthony's PhD p 87)
This process is the interplay/struggle of preferences and probabilities
as laid out in the MOQ. In other words: DQ/sq. It is the dance of 'Lila'.
Imho.
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
