Rog wrote:
I'd be careful who I camp with.
ROFL!! Well, in light of some of the recent posts, I must agree. Dunno as I
agree with Struan about SOM; I like Denis's likening of SOM to the ocean
surrounding the fish. Pirsig did a great job illustrating SOM's influence in
ZATAOMM.
Rog also wrote:
Do note that you are the first person in a while to step forward and quote
Pirsig on free will. Most of us have disliked his version.
Okay. Pirsig's version was not an absolute refutation of deterministic
'non-free will'. I imagine that grates on the minds of many. I found
Pirsig's version refreshing... maybe because it wasn't absolute?
Scott wrote before:
Depending on the particulars, the answer [to the question of free will]
changes.
Rog kept writing:
Again I agree. The answer changes based on your assumptions. Which
assumptions and answers are the best interpretation? That is the question.
Scott goes on to answer this very minute:
Um, I don't think I said what you agreed with. I said the answer changes
depending on the particulars; I meant the particular of the given situation.
Example: Boy abuses playmates when frustrated, let's say he hits them.
Teacher, counselor and vice principal tell him he shouldn't strike a
classmate, it's wrong, do the right thing. He glowers and is quiet, behaves
himself in the short term but later lashes out again in inappropriate rage.
Counselor talks to parents, finds out his father expresses his anger and
frustration in precisely the same way.
How much of the boy's behavior is determined by his environment? How much
deterministic theory should be applied in this case?
Another example: Child of well-to-do parents grows up and commits armed
robbery, say, killing someone in the process. A counselor hears that the
parents spent time with the child, gave the child attention and love, never
left the child with a nanny while they went on trips or whatever. The child
(now a grown criminal) shows intelligence, cruel wit and contempt for
authority (when visited in prison).
How much of this child's behavior was self-determined? How much should the
principle of free be applied in this case?
It sounds from these examples as if I support the zeitgeist of forgiveness
and irresponsibility current among many, but I don't. I support capital
punishment, actually. ( ! )
My point is simply that the answer to the question of free will is never
clear; the answer will change with the particulars of a given situation. I
refuse to accept an Ultimate Absolute answer to the question of free will for
the simple reason that such Absolutes are really not absolutes, they're
inventions. So Pirsig's answer appeals greatly to me, since it implicitly
accepts the idea that so-called Absolutes are really disguised definitions
that change over time.
You want a final answer to free will, for all time? More power to you.
Likely you will add to the Logos, possibly in constructive ways. It's also
possible the "final" answer will change yet again next century, after another
paradigm shift.
Rog reiterates:
The answer changes based on your assumptions. Which assumptions and answers
are the best interpretation? That is the question.
Sure, as Rog said, answers depend on assumptions; but wherever possible, I
choose not to make assumptions. Cop out or principled observation? You
decide. ;-)
I'll stick with Pirsig: to an extent my behavior is determined by static
patterns; to an extent I am able to exert my particular will. The extents of
both depend on the particular situation.
Hastily,
Scott
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]
