Back to you, Mark --
Hi Ham, Compatibilism? In your opinion, where does free will begin and where does it end? Think carefully and reductionally about this before answering. And, of course the self exists otherwise MoQ or Buddhism would not work. That is the conclusion of free will at all levels.
I ask a question and you return with another one. That's a new dialectical twist, isn't it, Mark? But at least we agree on the "reality" of the self.
You are asking me to define the limits of free will. I could respond by saying that, since it is experience that brings being into existence, will has NO limit. But that would be stretching what you mean by "free will". And it's Freedom that really is in question here.
So let me start, as experience starts, with the precept of a pluralistic otherness whose components emerge and relate in an orderly fashion according to what we are told are the Laws of Nature. The physical parameters of this objective otherness--the energy, mass, and forces by which its constituents function--are intrinsic to the differentiation of its source. By this, I mean that the (absolute) source doesn't just fragment randomly into so many finite entities, but instead negates ("excludes") some of its Sensibility to create a self/other dichotomy. This dichotomy establishes the primary Difference from which the value-sensible agent and its experience of differentiated otherness are derived.
So much for my cosmology. Now, to answer your question, I would say that Free Will begins with the free agent's realization of Value within this co-dependent relationship. It ends when the sensible agent has reclaimed the full complement of Value from which it had been estranged as an individuated self. In epistemological terms, this means that one's apperception, understanding, knowledge, appreciation, sense of meaning, and moral judgment of experiential reality are all manifested expressions of Free Will. More explicitly, the "qualitative" aspects of the physical world are actualized--I would even venture to say "determined" in this context--by the will of the individual subject.
I'm aware that my epistemology invokes "volition" and "intention", along with the "actions" or behavior typically associated with Free Will. But, as I stated in a post on Moral Responsibility two weeks ago, "We all have the freedom to act (or not act) within the limitations of our physical being. Volitional acts are motivated by one's sense of value. Whether a particular action is moral or not is determined by both the actor's value system and the mores of his/her society."
Hopefully, this valuistic analysis will not be viewed as another "Ham attack" on Pirsig's Quality thesis. As you can see, Value (Quality) factors prominently in my philosophy of Essence. Where I differ with Pirsig involves a metaphysical issue. He posits Quality as the fundamental reality of experience, while explaining away subjects and objects. I maintain that sensible subjects are necessary for the free realization of Value in objective existence, but that Absolute Essence, not Dynamic Quality, is the fundamental Reality.
Have I been "reductive" enough in answering your question, Mark? If so, you still owe me a response to my question: Is the MoQ a deterministic philosophy?
Essentially yours, 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
