Roger and all philosophers:
Well, its not that I feel usurped by your questions, but I was looking for
ideas, comments, or thoughts about Pirsig's answer. Anything will do. I'm
not that picky. We ought to have a conversation about it rather than brush
it aside, eh?
Here's where I think we should start; IT DOESN"T REALLY COME UP. That's the
thing!
So the question becomes; Why doesn't it come up? And what does that mean?
He suggests that it has to be understood in terms of the static/Dynamic
split and that reference is a solid clue as to why it doesn't come up, as I
tried to say in last Sunday's post.
There is something awfully modern about the free-will issue. Its an
enlightenment thing, caught somewhere between the Church's moral testing
ground and the mechanistic determinism of Newtonian physics. The traditional
kind of free will issue is an SOM platypus. It rests on the idea that
subjects are acting in a pre-existing world. It rests on the same old
Cartesian dualism.
And Rich is right, as usual, in pointing out the the individual person is so
radically different in the MOQ that the old questions about free will just
don't make sense anymore.
This is not an easy question to answer. I think it take a pretty clear
picture of the entire MOQ to see why it doesn't really come up. Pirsig
doesn't spell it out, but that doesn't mean its a fudge job. He's saying
that the question of free will, in light of the MOQ, is ill founded and ill
concieved. Its a bad question. Asking a bad question only reveals a lack of
understanding about the MOQ.
In the MOQ, will Struan's cat go to heaven? How many angels can dance on a
pin head?
Clearly some questions are just wrong, you know? A question can be wrong
too.
I dare say, Roger's request that we "define free will" might be wrong in
this sense. Pirsig says it doesn't come up, so the request becomes "define
that issue that doesn't come up". You see? The attempts to define it might
be interesting, but I imagine that discussion would take us in a direction
away from Pirsig's answer.
(Not that we all have to love it or accept it blindly, I'm just saying we
ought to explore the meaning of his answer to see if rejecting it is really
justified, which I seriously doubt.)
And if you've posted substantial thoughts in the past, please re-post them.
You'll save us all the task of finding it.
Why doesn't the free-will issue come up in the MOQ? THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Maybe we can talk about morality and agency and responsibility and AFTER we
answer that question. But I could be wrong.
DMB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com [SMTP:RISKYBIZ9@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 5:35 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD Re: FREE WILL MOQ SURVEY
>
> ROGER ATTEMPTS TO CONSOLIDATE RE: FREE WILL
>
> Following DMB's lead, can I ask us to each answer a few simple questions?
> I
> can then consolidate the issues and views.
>
> My suggestions for Q's:
>
> 1) Define free will
>
> 2) Does Pirsig adequately address the free will issue?
>
> 3) Does the MOQ adequately address the free will issue?
>
> 4) As succinctly as possible, what is the resolution to the free will
> issue?
>
> Could everyone involved and lurking please respond to these 4 Q's?
>
> Let me know ASAP if my questions are confusing or need elaboration. I
> will
> gladly consolidate......
>
>
> Roger
>
> PS -- David B. asked a few specific questions too in his 1/23 post. I
> believe they can be woven into the answers of those above....are you ok
> with
> this David?
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:37 BST