Hi, MDs
Just came back to the forum, and found awfully good posts
: thanks to all. After my last post, I decided not to
continue spoiling my week-end, and spent the rest far from
my computer, reading, jogging and going out to see friends.
A pretty good decision, it seems.
But first, I probably owe every spectator of Struan & I's
flame war an apology. Sorry guys, you are right, we were
wrong. I guess one's of Struan's comments is on spot : I am
ill-tempered. >:-{
Anyway, while I consider this whole affair to have been a
waste of time, it nevertheless spawned two good points : I
managed to thought out my own answer to free will's problem
(it bugged me for a long time), and our argument, while not
very intellectual, unexpectedly produced some very good
feedback. All kudos to the posters !
Here is a brief selection of what I found to be the most
relevant quotes to the free will problem, which clarified
what is the MOQ position.
[David Lind]
now - on to other thoughts.....a while ago i asked the
question about whether or not it mattered if we had free
will. that part of the quote was re-posted and used to
present that if there is no free will,then there can be no
morality. when i asked the question, i stated that if
there is no free will, then the consequences we assign to
someone for their act also lack free will. doesn't mean
there aren't any consequences.
[Denis]
Right on, David. That was a very good intuition, no doubt
it sparked some inspiration in the posters below. Your idea
is very close to my "moral order punishment" one. This is
what I would call "the mystic view". Above mere morality,
it views the unfolding dharma.
[Diana]
Within the intellectual level we see things
rationally, causally and in terms of subjects and objects.
Within the intellectual level we have free will. It's real
and it's a truth, but we have to remember that the
intellectual level is just one level of reality.
I think that is what Henri Poincare meant when he wrote:
"Modern man has used cause-and-effect as ancient man used
the gods; to give order to the universe. This is not
because it was the truest system, but because it was the
most convenient. "
The MOQ acknowledges a reality that is greater than the
intellectual level. In a metaphysics where the primary
split is dynamic and static we can use the intellectual
level when it's good to do so, but we do not confuse it
with truth. The MOQ does not throw away the intellectual
level. It's keeps what is good about it and uses it when
appropriate. The biggest problem with the intellectual
level is that it thinks that rationality is the _only_ way
to discover truth. All we have to do is realise that
although rationality is a good way to discover truth, it
isn't the only way. We do not have to throw away personal
responsibility. If we think that is a good intellectual
pattern we can keep it.
[Denis]
Diana, you are right, at the intellectual level, the whole
view changes. Reality is whatever we believe it is (which
doesn't mean we are free to believe whatever we want : we
are our values, not the reverse).
The sense of self is a deeply anchored intellectual
pattern, the hardest to get rid of. Deep down, the
holistic, spiritual self (the one that's described in my
quote of the Upanisads) is equated with Quality, but the
Intellect doesn't recognize this. For intellect, the self,
the "I" exists and can be judged like anything else. We
shouldn't confuse the mystic view (immoral people are
punished because it is in the order of things) with
intellectual judgment (immoral people should be punished
because they deserve it). In the end, the results are
identical, so perhaps this means the two views are related
in ways we can't yet understand.
[Roger]
In the MOQ, Free Will and the Self are intellectual
patterns that are judged based on their quality. The
measures of quality include logical consistency, clarity,
conclusiveness and most importantly concurrence with direct
experience. I believe this also addresses Denis' denial of
free will and Peter's concerns over whether there really is
an absolute answer to the issue.
[Denis]
Exactly, but what if free will is judged by the MOQ as a
bad intellectual pattern, better replaced by "the result of
a conflict of patterns" ? I've proposed this and would like
you to criticize it, since you are the one to have proposed
the conflict. I've substracted the "identifying with one
pattern over another", because, like Struan, I couldn't see
what exactly did identify with the patterns. How does this
impact the MOQ for you, Roger ?
[Richard]
If we are to establish a truly objective morality, don't we
have to consider every "accepted" use of the phrase that
has been? It just wouldn't be fair to say "we can't form a
universally objective theory of morality that fits our our
own "accepted" definition." Maybe the accepted definition
is what needs work, not the theory.
[Denis]
Well said, Richard. An accepted definition of morality is
hard to come by, anyway. Witness the endless debate around
Hiroshima. The question about "can we form an universally
objective theory of morality" is (for me) another
non-question as long as the MOQ is concerned, because it
logically follows from the MOQs precepts that it cannot be
done.
The universe (Quality) is flowing and evolving in a complex
dance of Dynamic breakthroughs and Static latchings. Being
composed of patterns of values, the universe is a moral
order of enormous complexity, which has been called Dharma
in the Orient.
What we call Morality is a intellectual pattern of value
defining "Good" at the social level. The social level being
a part of the universe, it evolves with the rest, and of
course, "Good" gets redefined in the process.
Therefore, only in context, and in taking heed of our
preintellectual awareness can the "best" be found, which
prevents us from ever finding an algorithmic way of
establishing an "universally objective morality". The
answer is to integrate the patterns (ie. to gain knowledge
about the phenomena at hand), and to seek preintellectual
insight.
[Richard]
In closing, I just mean to suggest that maybe external
validity and empirical verification are just useless
criteria for settling the question of free will or
determining the value of a moral theory.
..
Whoa boy, did that come out all wrong and extreme. I just
meant that maybe empirical verification isn't the most
valuable measure of man's freedom or morality.
[Denis]
Good rectification, and good insight too. Of course
empirical verification is good, since it means our model
(intPoV) is close to a actual pattern of value. But often
DQ insight comes before empirical verification (or we would
never have bothered to check in the first place), and as
such should be considered more important (but less
quantifiable).
[Peter]
Why does the notion of freewill have to be 'absolute', in
the sense of 'either there is, or there isn't'? - aren't
these kinds of dualities exactly what Pirsig (and
everyone's aunt) was trying to address?
[Denis]
Another good point. It is all a question of belief, after
all. We don't give "true" answers so in the largest sense
there isn't an "either...or" in a metaphysical sense.
But inside a system of beliefs, if logical consistency is
an accepted part of it (as in the MOQ) there can exist
incompatible propositions. So once such a proposition has
been determined to be the best, either by an individual or
by a group, the logically opposed other must be rejected as
"bad", or the MOQ is preaching for cultural relativism
(which might be summarily described as a "yeah,
whatever..." position). ;)
If this is the case, then MOQ has arrived at an even
worse position than SOM's ever was, since it cannot make
judgments anymore, and can't even fall back of objectivity
to do so.
If this is the case, we might just as well forfeit it.
The crux of the argument is that SOM insists on basing
every judgment on objectivity, even when it's no good,
while the MOQ wants to base judgments upon a
preintellectual sense of quality (lower-case). A duality of
true/false has been replaced by a far less tyrannical
duality of good/bad, but duality is still present. Peter is
right, the true/false dualities is what Pirsig is trying to
address, and he has chosen to enlarge the field by making
them a subset of the good/bad duality.
That's all for now. I'm looking forward to your input.
Be good
Denis
PS : Perhaps we could go on about free will for a while,
and leave SOM to the MF as long as we don't need it ? Just
a suggestion.
PPS : I had forgotten Davib B. ! Sorry David, I read your
posts with great enthousiasm (and a bit of embarrassment
over this metaphor schtick : that's what you get when you
get too hot-headed... I completely missed it...), and hope
you will comment this one. Seeya.
_______________________________________________________
Vendez tout... aux enchères - http://www.caraplazza.com
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 - 16:00:38 BST