Platt, jc, Rich, Roger and y'all:
Free will. Why doesn't it come up in the MOQ?
Thanks to everyone who offered an answer. I'm grateful for your thoughts
about Pirsig's answer, including the re-posted stuff. It so good to be
talking about the MOQ again.
jc, Yea, its a mu question. We agree on that much, but I'm asking WHY. It's
not enough to simply dismiss the issue by saying "mu". And you did offer
some thoughts...
In a very broad sense I guess you could say choice = mind, but its not
exactly clear what that means. If you're saying that freedom expands as
consciousness evolves, I'd certainly agree.
But you also say that the following two questions are the same; "How can a
mind question mind?" and "How can anybody question free will?". I don't
really get it. Where is the connection between these two questions? They
seem very different and I'm guessing that there is a missing link or two,
some thoughts that connect them in your imagination, but did not appear in
your post.
Rich, right on. "According to Pirsig, there is no independent "self" which
has a "will" and so there is no question...". There is no reason to beat
"our Cartesian heads against this non-substantial wall."
BUT, the MOQ's rejection of subjects and objects as the primary ontological
reality does not mean that individuals disappear altogether. It doesn't mean
the world has vanished. Lila is not only the cosmic dance of creation, she
is also a crazy has-been bar slut, and she represents a "real" individual
with her own struggles and her own history. I mean, it seems that living
persons are very much a part of Pirsig's picture. Ghandi and Hitler both
dedicated their lives to their countries, but oh what a difference!
Evolution and degeneracy are made manifest in the individual person, no? The
Zuni shaman and Pirsig himself were just working out their own problems, but
they also helped to solve the problems of their respective cultures too. How
does Pirsig put it? Its all about biography. On page 360...
"...evolution doesn't take place only within societies, it takes place
within individuals too... And Lila's battle is everybody's battle, you
know?"
You've got to admit, Struan makes a good point. We can't ignore the issues
surrounding our moral responsibility, which I'd say is about our role in the
evolutionary process... Again with the Ghandi/Hitler distinction, it clearly
matters what we do and what we choose. It matters very much.
So, Rich, I'd ask you to elaborate on the nature of "self" in the MOQ. I
mean, you're not suggesting any kind of nihilism or amorality, but what
about individual responsibilty for us as a "complex ecology of static
patterns"? It seems my non-Cartesian "self" can still be good or evil, a
Ghandi or a Hitler.
And just one more question for you, Rich. Ain't love grand? Congrats!
Roger, thanks for re-posting and for the Wilber tip. I've just started A
BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING and am really loving it. I actually prefer
Wilber's vocabulary to Pirsig's. Holons are static quality, yes? And I like
the level of detail that Wilber provides. Its the same picture as the MOQ,
but with more vivid color and sharper lines. A must read! Two thumbs up!
Back to the topic...
I'm puzzled as to why you reject Pirsig's answer, why you think he botched
it. It seems your comments went a long way toward explaining why the issue
of free will doesn't come up. Yea, free will implies a free subject, which
the MOQ rejects. I agree with you there, and as you said, we have come to
the same over-all conclusion. But I wonder about your interpetation of
Nishida...who said,
"We usually contend that the will is free. But what is this so-called
freedom? We think we can desire anything, but that simply means that it is
possible for us to desire. Its not so much that "I" produce desires, but
that actualized patterns are none other than me."
Compare Nishida's idea with Pirsig's description of Lila. (From your
favorite chapter, page 361.)
"If you compare the levels of static patterns that compose a human being to
the ecology of a forest, and if you see the different patterns sometimes in
competition with each other, sometimes in symbiotic support of each
other,...Lila then becomes a complex ecology of patterns moving toward
Dynamic Quality."
And then compare both quotes with your own folksy examples, where your
biological cake-lusting self is at odds with the social self, which has you
wanting a slim figure. Nishida would say that you don't PRODUCE these
conflicting desires, he's saying you ARE hunger and vanity. As Pirsig would
say, those different patterns are in competition but are both within the
same forest, which is you. So far we agree, right?
BUT, I don't see how you come to your conclusion that ...
" The definition of YOU is determined by those values which you choose to
define yourself by. When the definition of you matches with the predominant
value pattern, it is 'free will'. When it doesn't, it is 'against your
will'. "
Its seems you've changed the vocabulary, but end up with a version of the
SOM representational thing with this "matching" business...? Maybe I'm just
not quite "getting" it. I don't think we get to "choose" which of these
patterns we'd like to be. We're the whole forest, right? Could you please
clear this area up for me? Its interesting, and it seems critical to the
overall picture.
And finally, Platt, (Whew!) I agree with the gist of your thrust of your
notion, BUT (Don't I always have a BUT? Sorry.) BUT, I've heard and read
plenty of sentences that ain't got no dynamism in 'em. I don't think we can
rightly claim that every utterance is dynamic. Yes, normal human have a
seemingly infinite capacity to invent new sentences, BUT (There he goes
again.) I think you've got to be really creaive, really cut new turf to be
considered dynamic at that level. BUT, I don't really know. And mostly I
think you are correct, DQ still operates at every level in every moment and
that evolutionary force manifests itself differently at each level.
It feels like a real conversation to me. Thanks again.
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