Steve said:
For Pirsig, freedom is associated with following dynamic quality. His hot stove
analogy gives us one paradigmatic example of what it is like to follow DQ which
is in no way what anyone means by free will.
Pirsig's response to Hugo, who made the same assertion as Steve:
"Traditionally, this [free will as the ability of the autonomous entity to
choose] 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 said to Steve:
See, that is your often repeated claim [that following DQ is IN NO WAY what
ANYONE means by free will] and that is utterly defeated by Pirsig's response to
Hugo.
Steve replied:
Given that my claim has always been that what Pirsig means by "free will" is
very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term, you'll have
to explain how exactly the LC quote defeats rather than supports my position.
dmb says:
It's hard to see how this point could be any simpler or clearer and so I'm
quite amazed that you think this needs to be further explained.
You said, the MOQ's freedom is associated with following dynamic quality, which
is in no way what anyone means by free will. Pirsig says the MOQ can argue that
free will exists at all levels. You say that following DQ is not what ANYONE
means by free will but Pirsig is the most relevant someone and that's IS what
he means.
And, on top of that, despite your demonstrably false claims to the contrary,
your claim has definitely NOT always been "that what Pirsig means by "free
will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term". I
mean, everyone knows that the MOQ's free will is different from the traditional
view. That has never been in dispute and nobody ever said he was defending the
traditional view or the traditional metaphysical baggage. The Pirsig quote
defeats your position that following DQ is in no way a form of free will, that
nobody think of free will that way. Well, obviously, that's just wrong. No only
does SOMEBODY think of it that way, the author of the MOQ thinks of it that way.
It's very hard to believe that ANYONE needs this to be explained. I'm just
baffled by your apparent inability to derive meaning from sentences. As I see
it, one should be able to clearly see the point by simply putting your claim
next to Pirsig's comment. It is self-explanatory. It's about as complicated as
the instructions on a shampoo bottle. Lather and rinse. Repeat as necessary.
You gotta wash that ban (of the term 'free will') right out of your hair.
Even further, this not only explains exactly how the LC quote defeats your
position, it also explains how your position is defeated by the original
reformulation as we find it in Lila. The reductionist logic that produces
causal determinism "can be applied in A REVERSE DIRECTION", Pirsig says. "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, then it
follows that ATOMS MUST EXERCISE CHOICE TOO."
Are we supposed to believe that exercising choice is in no way what anyone
means by free will? No, of course not. That would be super stupid because
that's exactly how "free will" is defined in the dictionary, as "the power of
acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's
own discretion." In short, Steve, your claim is at odds with everything. It
defies proper use of terms, defies logic, philosophical encyclopedia, the
primary texts, commentary from the author of the primary text, the general
spirit of pragmatism, the spirit of radical empiricism and it's at odds with
the overall thrust of the MOQ, especially its emphasis on freedom and morality.
To put the same idea a different way, your claim is supported by nothing at all.
It's as if you are afflicted with some kind of conceptual dyslexia wherein
everything is upside-down and backwards, wherein the obvious needs to be
explained, where opposites are equated and where questions are posed after
they've been answered five times already. I sincerely hope that you're only
pretending to be that stupid. Your claims are pure nonsense either way, but if
you sincerely believe this drivel then you have my sympathy, at least. If you
are being honest here, then I can only wonder how you manage to keep a job or
otherwise function in life.
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
