Hi Ham,
On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:16 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve (Arlo mentioned) -- > > On Tues, 9/13/11 at 12:07 PM, "Steven Peterson" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On p222 of Lila's Child, Bodvar asks: "If the world is composed of >> values, then who is doing the valuing? >> >> 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). >> > [snip] >> >> If the individual is a figure of speech, then talking about the >> individual "making choices" is a figure of speech about a >> figure of speech. At no point does it begin to make any MOQ >> sense to say that the individual possesses or does not possess >> "free will." We literally are our value choices. Quality has Lila. >> The question in the MOQ is not about whether the individual >> possesses free will but whether values themselves are free. >> Pirsig's answer is that DQ is the free sort. SQ is the non-free sort. >> Talking about a person choosing one thing or another has no >> metaphysical reality in the MOQ. It is just a figure of speech. > > There you have succinctly laid out the inconsistencies in Pirsig's thesis > that result in an incomprehensible epistemology. Everything is analogy -- a > "figure of speech"; so there is no fundamental principle that we can believe > in and rely on. The individual himself is a figure of speech -- a collection > of Quality patterns; so there is no sensible agent who can assess or > interpret the Value that ostensibly resides in the realm of Dynamic Quality. > Most importantly, where there is no "chooser" there is no Choice, which rules > out Free Will as well as moral responsibility. > That everything is an analogy is an analogy. The point is not to confuse language for reality, just like one would not confuse a map for a country. As you may recall from ZMM, it was at this point that Phaedrus went quickly downhill. Such is the bewitchment by language. Once one realizes it for what it is, deep in the language free area of our minds, one can get quite lost. It is not for the timid or for those without a deeper sense of Being. Of course he does not mean that an individual is a figure of speech. Just the opposite. He means that an individual is nothing like a figure of speech. > The author's statement that "Quality has Lila" would suggest that Value > itself is an agent (agency?) of reality. But does that agency possess the > sensibility needed to make moral decisions? No, because Morality is posited > as the inherent quality of the evolutionary universe, which makes such > appraisals unnecessary. In other words, since the continuous movement to > Betterness is deterministic, the individual in only a redundant product of > evolution with no active role or purpose in the process. Ham, our perception of Lila is a perception of qualities. Therefore, Quality has Lila. Does this make sense? What we sense is not the thing itself, but it's qualities. In this way our reality is Quality. If you still do not "get" this, I will provide another analogy. As far as I am concerned, the "continual movement to Betterness" is a tautology, just like "survival of the fittest". > > Later, Arlo says to Dan: >> I'd say that seeing "free will" as some existential "out there" thing that >> floats around and controls experience is certainly an illusion. But the >> concept of "free will" is an intellectual pattern of value, a way we >> explain and make sense of our experience. > > [Steve comments]: >> Once we reject the first sense of an existential free will, what is left >> to debate in the old free will-determinism controversy? > > [Arlo replies]: >> Little, personally. But I think we can (and are) continuing to improve >> our explanations of experience. > > Really, Arlo? If you can explain experience in the absence of a sensible > agent, you'll be doing RMP and the rest of us a momentous favor. > > Thanks Steve, and good luck Arlo, > > --Ham > 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
