Dan, Ron, DMB, Steve, Andre, Marsha, Mark, All --
I have the distinction of being on the "ignore list" of someone you know who
derides me for saying that the MoQ is incomprehensible. So I thought it
would be interesting to wander through the week's posts on Free Will and
Determinism to see just how you folks "comprehend" it.
Here's a random sampling:
[Ron on 9/7]:
Experience is illusion. Therefore all wisdom is illusional.
Quality is illusion, every last bit.
[DMB on 9/10]:
You could have acted differently if you weren't controlled by
static patterns. You have free will to the extent that you follow DQ,
which means to the extent that you're attuned to and engaged with
the concrete particulars of your own experience. That's the particular
sort of free will you get in the MOQ.
[Steve on 9/11]:
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.
[Andre on 9/13]:
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.
[Mark on 9/15]:
All evidence points to the presence of a sensible agent as Ham calls it.
To deny that is to put your head in the sand!
[Marsha on 9/15]:
I deny the existence of an independent, autonomous self. The
"self" is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and
impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
[Mark on 9/16]:
If everything is ever changing, then what is static?
Why did Pirsig use that specific word?
[Steve on 9/16]:
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.
[Dan and Ron on 9/16]:
Dan:
As long as there are preferences, there are desires. As long as there
are desires, Dynamic Quality cannot emerge.
Ron:
One must add that what allows DQ to "emerge" in our lives lies in
the kinds of preferences we make. One prefers to eliminate desires
because one prefers betterness.
[Dmb on 9/16]:
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. ...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?
Perfectly comprehensible, right?
--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
