Matthew Ketchum wrote:
> I just discovered this site, so excuse me if I repeat some issues that you
> guys may have already covered in previous messages. I've been looking over
> some of the recent posts and have noticed that the issue of free will seems
> to be the hot topic at this time. Like most of you, I've always had a
> problem with the way in which Pirsig fails to address the problem adequately
> and basically seems to sweep it under the carpet.
>
> The fact of the matter is, there is no defense of free will. MOQ doesn't
> provide one any better than so-called SOM. Are human actions "determined"?
> Of course they are. The only other option is that they are completely
> random, and this clearly isn't the case.
the determinism/ free will issue is one derived from objects/ subjects.
>
>
> The real question is what they are determined by. The answer is that they
> are determined by our desires. Of course this just begs the question of
> what determines our desires. Pirsig's answer (which I think is a very good
> one) is that the ultimate determinants are the values of Quality
what values of quality? - quality IS value
> . However,
> we do not decide these for ourselves. They are decided for us through a
> combination of nature and nurture.
Doesn't Pirsig say that our sense of selves etc is a post quality experience
abstraction? (or something like that?)
We are decided by the awareness of Quality. Nothing is decided for us.
> Our instincts dictate our biological
> desires, our socialization process dictates our social desires, and reason
> dictates our intellectual desires. Finally, we all have a desire for a
> certain amount of change or newness at each static pattern of value, the
> amount of which differs from person to person (again based on nature and
> nurture).
>
>
> These are the things that determine our desires and ultimately our actions.
> The interplay between instincts, society, reason, and Dynamic Quality is
> different for each person, but this is not because of free will. It is
> because of different predispositions and experiences.
>
>
> This does not destroy humanity or the individual as some suspect, it merely
> redefines them. An individual is no more than the sum of his or her
> predispositions and experiences.
Hmmm - don't think so. What about the direct moments of quality perception?
Though maybe the final goal is true awareness of predispositions and experiences
and the transcendence thereof - like finally learning the rules and then
throwing them away becuase - hey I can't be bothered living tethered to a list
of rules and definitions. Some people go straight there anyway.
> That is the essence of self. There is
> nothing more. This may scare some people, but it seems to be the truth of
> the matter nonetheless.
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>
> 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
--
Colonel Reginald Smotheringay Smithe Smith (Duke of Arsedale)
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
