Hello Steve, 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. Ron: The impression given by the phrase "the serpent of causation is thus over everything. "... is that it promotes a kind of true description of how things are beyond the appearence of "freewill." I think in order to claim a victory in this thread you need to expand apon this. Touting DmB's head down MD main street ala Bodvar-esque style is'nt going to win it. But in order to grasp what the debate is composed of I must allow you to finish your appeal. Steve continues... 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 Connsider 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." Ron: I think what is neglected and the cause of the dispute is explanation of "why" in this formulation of identifying with "the big self" or "following DQ". I think ultimately, the arguement, with me atleast, lies in how you mean favoring or preffering "better" patterns or the capacity to do so. I think you need to unpack what you mean by that. One of your arguements was that since we ARE our prefferences it makes no sense to talk about the capacity of preffering "better-ness" or better "patterns" or did I get you wrong. 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%! Ron: OK, lets frame it like that, the "I" refers to the Big Self. To what extent do we have the capacity to preffer better-ness if we ARE our prefferences? thnks 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
