Greetings,
"Struan:
>Interesting though that your position rejects individual free will. There
>goes morality,
>responsibility and the ethical dimension of Lila.
RICH:
"No. It seems like you almost get the point, but you're limiting ethics to
ego-decisions - exactly what Pirsig wanted to expand to include chemistry
and biology, etc."
Whether or not I limit ethics to this is actually beside the point. The fact is that
ego-decisions
are at least a part of ethics and anything that denies a self is not going to be able
to address
that aspect. 'Transcending' the self, understood properly, is something I am quite
happy with and is
the main joy of being a jazz musician, but the self which acts within the world needs
to address the
meaning of free will if it is to go on to address the issues of moral responsibility
and self
determination.
As for Pirsig's answer. Well, he tries to answer a 'free will v determinism
controversy' and as such
a controversy stems from a confusion over the term free will it is unsurprising that
he comes out
with a confused answer.
HORSE:
"(. . . . I'm going to get really pissed off if someone gives me the standard Pirsig
fudge
that our actions are free when we follow DQ, 'cause if we don't CHOOSE our course then
we
are not FREE. Are we being continually being blown about by the wind of DQ or can we
make a choice of the most Dynamic action. Choice still comes into the equation and the
question of whether we have it or not still needs to be answered)
Precisely. There is no resolution in Lila whatsoever, only the same misunderstanding
that is in the
question. Randomness is the antithesis of free will and 'following' dq does not equate
to having a
choice to do so. What more needs to be said? But this argument has been put forward
many times and
it is hardly the fault of those that disagree with Pirsig if there has been no
coherent contrary
position forwarded in reply. I completed my, 'in-depth inquiry into what Pirsig
meant,' a while ago,
presented my findings and (contrary to the usual Noddy claims) gave reasons for them.
If anyone
thinks that Pirsig does make sense here, then let them say why. I certainly feel no
obligation to do
so. Once that has happened, perhaps those who agree with Pirsig's resolution could
address the
criticisms presented and show how the resolution answers them. It seems to me that the
'agreers' are
a couple of steps behind. Not my fault I'm afraid, although I appreciate the effort to
try and bring
them up to speed.
Struan
P.S. Back to SOM and again I didn't misunderstand your sentence Rich. My position has
been
consistently that SOM is not a metaphysics at all - either implicit or explicit. I did
not reject it
as an explicit metaphysical position. I rejected it full stop. (or 'period,' whichever
form you use
in Canada).
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
