Hi Ron, On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:37 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron: > Example: > > Steve said to DmB > > "Compatiblism says that free will and determinism are both true. It says that > the serpent of causation is thus over everything. "... > > How can hey both be true if causation runs over everything? I think you need > to explain yourself on > how you envision freedom and free will if it is as true as determinism. > > This would help out.
Steve: Various compatibilists have various ways of looking at free will and determinism as compatible notions. If we are talking a pragmatic perspective on free will/determinism (as I am) then both can coexist peacefully as intellectual patterns rather than claims about Ultimate Reality as opposed to mere illusion. Pragmatically they are both intellectual descriptions of experience about which we need not ask which is the one True description of The Way Things Really Are beyond all appearances. See Pirig's Lila: "If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things-that which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." If you are asking whether free will or determinism is REALLY true--which is the the REAL painting, which one is the one correct construction of things corresponding to objective reality, then you aren't asking a question about which the MOQ is about to take sides on. Consider looking at it is in terms of Big Self/small self as I described a Pirsigian reformulation of the free will/determinism issue back on April 26. I still stand by this compatiblist view of the MOQ's position on the matter... "The MOQ does not posit the existence of the reified concept of a chooser, a Cartesian self, a watcher that stands behind the senses and all valuation, the soul. The MOQ does not posit an extra-added ingredient above and beyond the patterns of value and the possibility for patterns to change that are collectively referred to as "I" about which it could possibly make any sense to ask, "do I have free will?" This question gets dissolved in the MOQ to the extent that it needs to be unasked. This question presupposes that there is such a thing as "I" that has important ontological status that transcends those patterns of value to which it refers. The MOQ makes no such fundamental postulate. Free will is formulated as a question that is asked in the SO context. Instead, in MOQ terns we can reformulate the question where "I" could refer to the static patterns (small self in Zen terms) or the "I" could refer to the capacity for change, emptiness, the nothingness that is left when we subtract all the static patterns that is also the generator and sustainer and destroyer of those patterns (big Self in Zen terms). That's what Pirsig did with the question. We can identify with our current patterns of preferences and the extent to which we do so we are not free. We are a slave to our preferences. Rather we ARE our preferences. Or we can identify with the capacity to generate, sustain, or destroy existing patterns in favor of (we hope) new and better ones. To the extent we do we are free." Steve continues: I am determined to the extent we are controlled by static patterns. To what extent is that? Well, if "I" refers to small self, a collection of static patterns of all four levels, then 100%. I am free to the extent that I follow DQ. To what extent is that? Well, if "I" refers to Big Self, 100%! 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
