ROGER CONTINUES TO DISAGREE WITH
MOST OF STRUAN'S CRITICISMS OF THE MOQ
To Struan and Keith and Jonathan and Scott and gang,
STRUAN:
1) Free will - We agree Pirsig botched it. I disagree that the moq has
anything valid to say about
it TO ME at all. Your solution is that we are no longer just subjects under
the moq and that this
somehow disposes of the problem.
[quoting me]
"The MOQ can come to our rescue though,for we are no longer just 'subjects',
we are better defined as 'patterns of value'. Interestingly enough, I think
you will agree that 'will' is a value pattern as well. Free will is hence
defined as agreement between patterns of value.Free will is the consistency
of our definitions of self and desire."
Firstly, there is no need for a rescue because there is no problem to
resolve.
ROGER:
Free Will is still considered one of the most complex and contentious issues
in the field of philosophy. To quote my encyclopedia of
metaphysics....."The problem of free will has proven so intractable, that a
pessimistic conclusion cannot be dismissed out of hand. " In other words,
the authors go so far as to suggest that we should question whether it is
resolvable at all. You and I may each state that we have reached a
harmonious understanding of free will, but I would be very sceptical of any
statement that Western Philosophy has solved the issue.
STRUAN:
Secondly, I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of that Roger.[out of my
quote above] I don't have the first clue what you are trying to say.Never
mind though, if it resolves a perceived problem to your satisfaction then
that is great. I will stick with the realisation that free will lies in the
fact that we cannot predict what we are going to do and thus I save myself
from having to request a re-write.
ROGER:
Free will involves two basic issues. Moral responsibility and self
determinism, or autonomy. Until the 20th century, the easiest argument
against free will was scientific determinism. In a mechanistic, predictable
universe all our actions appeared predetermined and hence, not self
determined. Of course we now know that the world is not deterministic or
predictable. But as you mentioned previously, "neither determinism or
indeterminism has any decisive effect on the concept of free will." This is
basically correct, as there are two opposite angles to attack free will.
Determinism and indeterminism. Both undermine the self determinism that is
required for free will. Freedom is destroyed when our will is caused by
something other than ourselves, or if it is not determined at all.
But I completely disagree with your statement here that "free will lies in
the fact that we cannot predict what we are going to do." Unpredictableness
is not sufficient for free will. Again, to repeat, the concept of free will
also requires self determinism.
My suggested solution to the issue using the MOQ involves the definition of
the self. In SOM, the self is some fixed, objective entity. In the MOQ, it
is a collection of patterns. These patterns are of multiple levels and can
often be at odds with each other. In addition, there is not one correct set
of objective patterns which are you and which are not you. I believe what we
call free will or autonomy or self determinism is that state where we
identify ourselves with the primary value pattern. Free will in the MOQ is
convergence between self and action.
For example, if you are in a locked room, it is possible to be in a state
where biologically you want out, but physically you can't do it. The
conflict in value patterns is considered a restriction in freedom, with you
identifying yourself not with your inorganic self, but with your biological
values. Another example is where you want to eat cake biologically, but
socially you know you shouldn't gain any more weight. Your biological self is
in conflict with your social self. One of these will win, and the key to
whether you were 'free' or 'compelled' to eat the cake is simply a matter of
which value pattern you identify with yourself.
In other words, free will is the state where we identify our self with the
value pattern that is actualized. This also clarifies that free will is a
characteristic of self-conscious beings.
One related issue is degrees of freedom. A rock is so restricted in freedom
that it was (wrongly) assumed for hundreds of years by science that it was
determined for all time. A biological being has much more degrees of
freedom. As we get to social-intellectual beings, we gain not only an almost
limitless variety of freedom, we also gain the freedom to identify ourselves
with more and more value patterns. Still, we do not have absolute freedom.
When we come to a fork in the road, we can turn left or right, but we can no
longer choose to not be here at all.
In summary, the free will controversy is a poster child for contentious
issues in SOM that can be clarified via the MOQ. Western subject object logic
cannot resolve the issues. The collection-of-patterns concept of the MOQ
does solve the issue by questioning the very assumption of an objective self.
STRUAN:
2) Ethics. You say that Pirsig 'rejects intellectual rationalisations' of
ethical dilemmas. O.K, the
moq approach to ethics is not rational. I couldn't agree more. So you
effectively say that Pirsig's
irrational ethical system is to "continuously re-evaluate new approaches to
problems using the
framework of the hierarchy of quality." Fine, so long as we agree that this
is irrational. I want a
rational explanation and have no more reason to accept this than to accept
that my cat pronounces
upon all ethical dilemmas with complete authority. Thus I reject it.
ROGER:
The MOQ recognizes the limitations of intellectual patterns and is post
rational. It is in no way irrational. Recognizing the limitations of logic
and proof is not illogical or irrational. Kurt Godel, I believe, would agree.
And continuous dynamic re-evaluation is not irrational either. So again,
where I find complete value, you find no value.
STRUAN:
3) Originality - But Pirsig 'solves' the problems in different ways to
others. It is just that he
has to misunderstand and misreport the problems first before his solutions
work, (As with free
will/determinism, nature/ nurture, SOM, materialism, substance, science,
mind, matter etc, etc ). He
clarifies popular misconceptions with his own misconceptions and thus
clarifies nothing.
ROGER:
I won't argue that he made no mistakes in 1000 plus pages, but I believe his
representations of most of the above issues was quite accurate. I appreciate
your criticisms, but I rarely agree with you on them (though I do agree he
botched the free will issue.)
STRUAN:
4) SOM - Well, personally I think we all have a hedgehog/non-hedgehog
metaphysics. (HNHM) I
sincerely believe that whatever we look at, our brains classify it as either
a hedgehog or a
non-hedgehog before we then subclassify it as a tree, house or whatever. And
do you know, most
people aren't aware of it? Thank God I have seen the light. But seriously,
objectivity is a tool. No
more and no less. If I want to measure how long my bed is, I will objectively
use a tape measure
having first objectified the bed and realised that I am the subject who is
doing the measuring.
Scientists are not in the business of putting metaphysical disclaimers at the
foot of their papers.
Now, of course, I could attempt to measure the bed by refusing to classify it
as a bed, by taking
some acid, going into a mystical trance and marvelling at, like, wow, I'm one
with my tape measure
and bed man.........and therefore the whole concept of measuring the bed
distinguishes you as steeped in SOM," might result in me knowing the precise
length of my rectum - if you get my drift.
ROGER:
I believe the critical dimension is its width, not its length. But
seriously, objectivity is indeed a useful tool. I do not reject it. I find
there are limitations to objectivity that the MOQ allows us to transcend. If
there was any value to HNHM I would consider that too. Your humorous
depictions of mysticism above are also at complete odds with mine. Keith did
a brilliant job in July of 1998 of explaining the post-logical value of
mysticism that stripped it of the acid and religious trance noise. It was
one of my all time favorite posts in the squad. I can attach abbreviated
exerpts if anyone is interested.
STRUAN:
5) Quality - Agreed. Relation is much better.
ROGER:
My conclusions?
Free will - This is clearly an intractable issue in Western philosophy. The
MOQ does solve it.
Ethics - the moq proposes a post rational ethics.
Originality - Less than original answers to very real questions.The value of
the MOQ is how it ties so many fields of knowledge and ethics together.
SOM - Well documented and easily apparent as the unquestioned underlying set
of assumptions of Western conventional wisdom.
Terminology - Value and relationship are great terms. Quality is laden with
baggage. Morality sucks.
Let me know your thoughts.
Roger
PS -- Scott, although not quoting you, I believe the above addresses your
post in entirity. I feel that you are following Struan's lead and
oversimplifying the free will issue onto the single dimension of
predictability. (if I understand you correctly). You are 100% right though
that I should not use the word 'reject' in 'rejects intellectual
rationalisations' . The MOQ is post rational, not a rejection of
rationality. I accept your suggestion here completely.
"You never get it right, so why try?....... The longer he worked on it the
wronger it would probably get." [Pirsig quotes on his own metaphysics]
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
