Hi Steve, I am not sure where you are getting your definitions from. Since you read William James, I will refer to my recollection of what he wrote in the Pluralistic Universe (in my own words of course, since unlike MRB my memory is not photographic, (just kidding MRB)). Determinism means that we are a domino that is falling at a predetermined time. This means that everything that happens was set out with the Original Idea, or Intelligent Design. The original idea provided the beginning, the end, and everything in between all in one FLASH. As such, determinism is complete Monism. That is, we are all part of God. Pluralism, on the other hand, contends that we are separate from God. (Caution: I am using the term God for rhetorical purposes, and it does not matter if you do not believe in God, I could use a number of other words). Of course, as I will point out below, everything is separate from God, or Nature is composed of separate entities which act as a whole.
Free will (or indeterminism if you want), requires at least two independently operating systems. One could say that Buddha was an indeterminist since he preached co-dependent arising, "co-" relating to Two. Some interpret Buddha as thinking that such co-dependent arising results in the absence of what is formed by that co-dependent arising. This could not be farther from the truth. In fact, Buddha seeks to escape from this world of co-dependency. For something to escape it must exist. The interface of such arisings is just as real as the wind on your body makes you cold. For something real to seek escape, it must contain free will. This last statement was meant for those who think that Buddhism is nihilistic. It is so far from nihilism it isn't funny. There is no such thing as partial determinism as I believe Jan wrote. This is like being partially pregnant or partially dead. Determinism is a premise in philosophy that keeps getting perpetuated for ever by short sighted people who think that there is no hope. I thought Pirsig had put that to rest in Lila. On page 181 of Lila I quote: "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but that everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else.". This quote states two things. One is that determinism is not a correct way to frame the universe since ethics and determinism are not compatible. The second is that Free Will is held at all levels, from the Quark to the Quasar. It has to be if one believes in a Moral Universe. Such belief is justified since it is hard to differentiate between man and anything else in terms of his actions. Choices are made at every level, just not "human" choices. Regards, Mark Mark On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: >> dmb says: >> Here's how I understand the operative terms. "Determinism" is doctrine that >> says our actions are not really chosen by us, that we are not in control of >> our actions. > > > Steve: > The problem with this definition is that the MOQ agrees that "our > actions are not REALLY chosen by us" since "us" doesn't have any REAL > metaphysical status. Lila doesn't REALLY have the patterns, the > patterns have Lila. > > So this definition doesn't work to show how the MOQ disagrees with > determinism. To affirm or deny that "our actions are not REALLY chosen > by us" would be to implicitly accept the s/o metaphysical picture upon > which this claim rests (as punches up an appearance reality > distinction with the "really.") The MOQ can't do that. Instead it > says "mu" to the free will determinism debate about whether choices or > causal laws are what is REALLY real and reformulates the issue of > freedom to a point where we stop wondering whether "free will" or > "causal laws" are more real. BOTH are real in the exact same way. Both > are intellectual patterns of value. NEITHER free will nor causality > can claim the the metaphysical high ground--the more primary > metaphysical status. The metaphysical status that "freedom" has as > Dynamic Quality is not a capacity of will and is in no way threatened > by the fact that humans can often successfully predict experience in > terms of causal laws. > > > dmb: > Causal determinism is a particular kind of determinism, the kind that > says we are controlled by the laws of cause and effect. > > Steve: > The MOQ in contrast says that causal laws are aesthetic intellectual > creations. "Laws of cause and effect" are not embedded deep in the > cosmos that give us hints about a primal metaphysical reality. When > viewing such laws as intellectual patterns of value, they are tools > that humans have developed to try to control their environment, so it > is absurd to worry about them being the underlying reality which has > been controlling us since the beginning of time. We don't have to fear > being controlled by Newton's gravitational laws when we understand > them as Pirsigian ghosts. > 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 > 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
