Hi Steve, Andre, Arlo, Horse, Dan, Matt, all,
Steve said to dmb:
...You have held that if we strip the metaphysical baggage from free will, then
the MOQ can be said to support it.
dmb says:
That's right.
As I see it, the debate has always been about what views the MOQ does and does
not support. We aren't talking about anything so fancy as the ultimate truth,
whatever that is, we are simply talking about what Pirsig means. That is
something we can determine with a reasonable amount of certainty, especially if
we have a record of explicit statements from the author. In this case, thanks
to Andre and Dan, that's exactly what we have. Look, Steve, this guy named Hugo
said what you have been saying about "will" and "free will" and Pirsig shot him
down. Bang, you're dead. Checkmate. It's over. Why can't you see that?
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)
dmb continues:
Like I said, this is what I've been saying all along and these sentences from
Pirsig specifically address (and defeat) your position. These lines neatly
summarize the MOQ's reformulation AND he actually uses the term "free will" in
summarizing this freedom - freedom that exists to some degree at all levels of
the MOQ. When Pirsig says,..."free will exists at all levels with increasing
freedom to make choices as one ascends the levels," he is being pithy but it's
no different from what he had already written in Lila as part of his
explanation:
"...even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of
values and moral judgements are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws.
OF COURSE IT SOUNDS PECULIAR AT FIRST and awkward and unnecessary to say that
hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral to do so. But it is no less
peculiar and awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors smoke
pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the
cosmos force them to do it. IN THE PAST the LOGIC HAS BEEN that if chemistry
professors are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the laws
of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause
and effect too. But his logic can be applied in A REVERSE DIRECTION. We can
just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry
professor are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors EXERCISE CHOICE, and
chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, th
en it follows that ATOMS MUST EXERCISE CHOICE TOO." (I had already added the
emphasis when presenting this quote to Steve a month ago.)
This is the evidence, Mr. Peterson. This is how the pieces are arranged on the
board at this point in the game. As I see it, anyone who knows the rules of the
game can simply look at the arrangement of pieces and see that you're been
checkmated. Why don't you see it?
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
