[Steve]
For [DMB] the terms [agency/freedom] are mutually exclusive with
determinism. How would you distinguish these terms?
[Arlo]
Again, I'm not following your entire dialogue with DMB, so I can't make
a comment about that (I do flag all posts that reference me by name).
I think "agency" and "determinism" are not relatable terms because they
are part of different theories. Most agency theories, however, are built
around the structuration (Archer, Giddens) or "habitus" (Bourdieu) or
even "ventriloquation" (Bakhtin). In these theories, "agency" is not
divorced from, nor diametrically opposed to, "structure", both are seen
(to use the Buddhist term) as 'interdependently arising'. That is,
structure enables agency, and agency builds structure. In many ways, to
increase "agency", one actually increases "structure" (note that to
understand this one has to back away from the "free will/determinism"
view of structure).
The MOQ, for example, can be seen as increasing structural complexity as
well as increasing agenic potential as one moves up the hierarchy. An
atom is (for argumentative purposes) the pattern with the least
structure and also the least potential agency. A human being has one of
the most biologically complex neurological structures, and lives in a
(modern) world of highways/airports/internets/worldwide distribution
networks/etc and enjoys the greatest agency in history. An example I
gave before is the building of the American Interstates (increasing
structure) that has enabled a dramatic increase in potential moveability
(increased agency).
But, the important thing is that this increased agency is not increased
chaos. Although the Interstates have enabled greater and greater degrees
of mobility, you have to stay on them to benefit from this, and we (as a
society) have to agree to all sorts of traffic laws to ensure these
highways function. This is important because, once you move into "mental
structures" or "habitus" (cultural structures, to simplify), you start
to see that the very act of assimilating a culture affords the
biological entity an exponential growth in agency, but at the same time
structures the emergent social/intellectual being towards certain
patterns of thought. Lakoff has done some nice, and easily readable,
work in this regard.
So, to answer (I hope), within this view "freedom" and "structure" are
not mutually exclusive, but mutually enabling.
[Steve]
I agree with you that agency, the increasing repertoire of responses to
quality as we move up the MOQ evolutionary hierarchy (And as we move up
we find new sorts of constraints as well as new possibilities.), is the
conception of freedom that the MOQ endorses.
[Arlo]
Right. Andre posted this quote from Pirsig the other day.
"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)
You can restate this with no loss of meaning by saying that the
repertoire of responses to Quality at the lowest inorganic level is very
small, almost so small as to appear non-existent, but that repertoire of
potential is still there. And as one ascends the levels, one sees an
increasing repertoire of potential.
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
