Dear Jonathan, Marco, Adam, Platt etc.,
I agree with Jonathan (12/8/02 13:39 +0300) that both 'accident' and
'purposes' are platypi in the MoQ sense: they don't fit in a subject-object
classification. 'These creatures that seem like such a permanent part of the
philosophical landscape magically disappear when a good Metaphysics of
Quality is applied.' ('Lila' chapter 7)
How to dissolve the controversy whether the material world as we know it
originated in and developed (progressed) by accident or on purpose?
Let's compare it with Pirsig's dissolution of the controversy whether human
beings are determined or have free will. (A full quote from chapter 12 of
'Lila' where he does this follows this post.)
His answer is that human beings are BOTH determined AND have free will: 'To
the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
which is undefinable, one's behavior is free.'
(You remember, Jonathan, that you wrote 3/12/01 15:05 +0200: 'I really don't
understand how one "follows" dynamic quality.'? I didn't come round to
answer you then, but I did NOT mean to imply 13/11/01 15:23 +0100 that 'one
should break the rules [social patterns of values] purely for the sake of
breaking them', but that I try to break some social patterns of values -I
referred then to violence in Israel/Palestine- for the sake of establishing
new and better ones -e.g. non-violent conflict resolution-. 'Following DQ'
meant in that context: 'only breaking social patterns of values if something
better seems to be in sight, even if it is not a fully crystallized social
pattern of values yet'.)
Note that 'free will' implies 'freedom to act purposefully', to create one's
own purposes and act upon them defying static patterns of values
(misunderstood by SOM as 'causation', another platypus).
'Purpose' is associated with 'DQ' here.
If human beings are determined to the extent that they express static
patterns of values and are free to act purposefully to the extent that they
'follow DQ' (sic), other 'things' are too. The whole material world as we
know it expresses BOTH static patterns of values
AND dynamic values, values chosen freely.
As we experience accumulating static patterns of values of growing
complexity, we tend to presume The Origin to have been devoid of static
patterns of values. There was only freedom to choose, resulting in
unpatterned chaos. Only purpose, maybe, but not in the SOM-sense in which
only human beings (or other future-conscious beings) or at least 'some
thing' can 'purpose', as there was 'no thing' there yet which could
'purpose'.
(I prefer not to use 'God' as meaning an antropomorph, future-conscious
being, even if I recognize the Meaning of metaphors in which 'God' appears
as such. So God/DQ was there at The Origin for me, but not as a 'being
purposing creation', but as a 'freedom to purpose', to improve on chaos for
any pattern that happened to occur.)
The material world 'develops' in a sense BOTH in a determined way, following
static patterns of values, AND in a purposeful way, following DQ, the lure
of 'better'. In another sense, when 'development' and 'evolution' are taken
to imply 'progress', it only 'develops' purposefully (for expressing
pre-existing static patterns of values brings nothing new, no 'development'
in that sense). BUT we should take 'purpose' here in a sense that doesn't
presume an anthropomorph, future-conscious being that 'purposes' something.
What's true (or rather Meaningful) for the material world is also
true/Meaningful for the non-material world, for the MoQ doesn't recognize
matter/non-matter as a fundamental split in reality.
So everything is BOTH determined AND able to 'purpose'.
What does that mean for the controversy whether everything
originated/developed from accident or on purpose?
In this controversy 'purpose' is associated with sq (one or more static
patterns of values having determined what exists now) rather than with DQ.
Accident is associated with DQ (freedom to develop in whatever direction
appears best in the spur of the moment) rather than with sq.
As Pirsig states in chapter 7 (fuller quote follows this post): '"causation"
is a metaphysical term that can be replaced by "value."'
Likewise 'purpose' in the context of this controversy can be replaced by
'causation': If everything originated/developed on purpose, there must be an
unbroken chain of causation from original purpose (or purposes...) to end
result. Scientific data indicating an original purpose (or original
purposes...) for the present state of affairs can just as well be
interpreted as indicating an original cause (or original causes...). No
present data can prove the existence of a plan (some kind of blueprint) for
what was to come at the beginning (nor of various blueprints along the way).
Who knows what the first quarks 'wanted' when they secured their existence
by forming the first neutron(s)? We only know that there must have been
separate quarks before neutrons were formed. The coming together of quarks
may have been 'on purpose', or it may have been 'caused' by some of their
inherent characteristics or ... (as 'causation' in its turn can be replaced
by 'value') they may just have 'valued' coming together.
So sq, the value of forming stable patterns, started it all and kept it
moving, for ever more complex stable patterns of values were valued by
earlier formed patterns, their building blocks. And it doesn't change a damn
to our data when we rephrase 'sq' as 'purpose', even if 'it may sound a
little awkward (in Pirsig's words of chapter 7).
If we agree that WE at least retrospectively value the outcome of evolution,
we'd better rephrase 'accident' as 'happy accident' or 'luck'. And as Marco
pointed out 6/8/02 11:30 +0200, quoting as support Pirsig from chapter 9
(full quote below): 'luck' is just another word for DQ. That also was
necessary to start it all and keep it moving: those first quarks (and
everything that came after) needed freedom to develop to develop in whatever
direction appeared best (at least retrospectively for us) in order to create
stable patterns in the first place.
So again the 'accident' versus 'purpose' controversy disappears in a 'BOTH
... AND ...' by applying the MoQ (and slightly redefining the terms in the
process).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
from 'Lila' chapter 7:
'In the Metaphysics of Quality "causation" is a metaphysical term that can
be replaced by "value." To say that "A causes B" or to say that "B values
precondition A" is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words
only. Instead of saying "A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,"
you can say "Iron filings value movement toward a magnet." Scientifically
speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may sound a
little awkward, but that's a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The
language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself
is unchanged.'
from 'Lila' chapter 9:
'Their [American Indians] term manito is often used interchangeably with
"God" by whites who usually think all religion is theistic and by Indians
themselves who don't make a big deal out of any verbal distinctions. But as
David Mandelbaum noted in his book The Plains Cree, "The term manito
primarily referred to the Supreme Being but also had many other usages. It
was applied to manifestations of skill, fortune, blessing, luck, to any
wonderous occurrence. It connoted any phenomenon that transcended the run of
everyday experience." In other words, "Dynamic Quality".'
from 'Lila' chapter 12:
'A third puzzle illuminated by the Metaphysics of Quality is the ancient
"free will versus determinism controversy." Determinism is the philosophic
doctrine that man, like all other objects in the universe, follows fixed
scientific laws, and does so without exception. Free will is the philosophic
doctrine that man makes choices independent of the atoms of his body.
This battle has been a very long and very loud one because an abandonment of
either position has devastating logical consequences. If the belief in free
will is abandoned, morality must seemingly also be abandoned under a
subject-object metaphysics. If man follows the cause-and-effect laws of
substance, then man cannot really choose between right and wrong.
On the other hand, if the determinists let go of their position it would
seem to deny the truth of science. If one adheres to a traditional
scientific metaphysics of substance, the philosophy of determinism is an
inescapable corollary. If "everything" is included in the class of
"substance and its properties," and if "substance and its ' properties" is
included in the class of "things that always follow laws," and if "people"
are included in the class "everything," then it is an air-tight logical
conclusion that people always follow the laws of substance.
To be sure, it doesn't seem as though people blindly follow the laws of
substance in everything they do, but within a deterministic explanation that
is just another one of those illusions that science is forever exposing. All
the social sciences, including anthropology, were founded on the bedrock
metaphysical belief that these physical cause-and-effect laws of human
behavior exist. Moral laws, if they can be said to exist at all, are merely
an artificial social code that has nothing to do with the real nature of the
world. A "moral" person acts conventionally, "watches out for the cops,"
"keeps his nose clean," and nothing more.
In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent
that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is
without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is
undefinable, one's behavior is free.'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST