Hi Arlo,
> [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.... Steve: That response reminds me of the Kuhnian term "incommensurability." I guess one way of putting my position on free will-determinism and the MOQ is that there is an incommensurability there. But I think the terms free will, determinism, agency, structure, dynamic, and static are "relatable," in the sense that we can compare and contrast usages. It's just that free will and determinism terms have to take on a very different meaning (of the sort Pirsig described in his "to he extent that" reformulation) that some would say (I would) does so much damage to the traditional meaning of the terms that it would be better just to use different terms in order to avoid serious misunderstanding. I take it that you see agency/structure as a more compatible conception of freedom for the MOQ than free will/determinism. Arlo: 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: Yes, I think that agency/structure fits well with the MOQ's dynamic/static. Would you agree that free will/determinism does not fit nearly so well? Best, Steve 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
