----- Original Message -----
From: "André" <psytrancekid@yahoo.co.uk>
André and All:
I cried when Frodo volunteered to take the ring into Mordor at the Council
of Elrond. I coundn't figure out where the tears came from nor why? I
guess it was the strength of his offering. I can relate to Lawry's conflict
of parts. I think that when I decide to do something it is already done. I
want to say no-mind, no-will, no-how ['].
Joe
(André)
I don't remember being asked if I wanted free will (if
I in fact have it). I think free will is the red
herring of all red herrings .. for various reasons.
Without going into the reasons, yet, ... how about a
quick "Free Will" poll. Where would you put your tick?
I like the idea of Free Will, therefore it exists for
me [ ]
I don't like the idea of Free Will, therefore it does
not exist for me. [ ]
André
--- Matt the Enraged Endorphin
<mpkundert@students.wisc.edu> wrote: > John and all,
>
> I've been tinkering around with the same thinking
> for a while. In all
> three of my essays in the Forum, I offer the
> cookey-cutter solution to the
> free will/determinism problem that Pirsig offers.
> Glenn Bradford sharpened
> my growing dismay with this answer when he commented
> on my third
> capitulation in a private e-mail, "Far from
> disolving this age-old dilemma,
> all this does is rephrase the problem in MOQ terms:
> now we must ask when
> our behavior is controlled by static patterns and
> when we are free to
> follow Dynamic Quality." This got me to thinking.
> I responded in
> something to the effect that, "Well, the question is
> changed simply because
> the question is now 'When are we free and when
> aren't we?" How can we tell
> when we are being Dynamic and when we are being
> static? That's one of the
> toughest questions the MoQ faces. As far as I can
> tell, its fairly easy to
> describe and redescribe an event in either terms
> which poses a problem for
> the ethics of the MoQ.
>
> What moved me beyond this point was a class that
> touched on Kant's ethics
> and some thinking I had been doing on consciousness
> in the MoQ. First,
> consciousness. Once again, Glenn sharpened my
> thinking (in that same
> e-mail): "It is true that saying "B values
> pre-condition A" is equivalent,
> insofar as the data reveals, to "A causes B". The
> question really boils
> down to how compelling this alternative is when you
> are talking about atoms
> and such. Having preferences require some semblance
> of consciousness, and
> from what we know about unquestioned examples of
> consciousness, you need
> brains. Atoms don't have brains." He's absolutely
> right. Except that I
> don't think brains are required for consciousness.
> We simply infer that
> from the one source of consciousness we are "proof
> positive" of: our own.
> But inferences aren't very persuasive with only one
> piece of evidence (this
> is essentially a Sartrean treatment of
> consciousness).
>
> What happens in the MoQ is that the locus of
> consciousness is placed in
> every particular thing that can be identified as
> valuing something else.
> Which means that atoms are conscious (insofar as
> they value one thing over
> another). What this also means is that this locus
> of consciousness is also
> the locus of free will. It makes a choice between A
> and B. So, free will
> and consciousness are located at the very root of
> Quality. Without them,
> Quality wouldn't make sense.
>
> I mentioned Kant earlier in relation to this
> treatment of the MoQ. Kant
> posited free will for the purposes of morality.
> Kant argued that without
> free will there could be no ethical or moral
> judgements. So he posited it
> in the realm of noumena, the undefined "real world"
> that sits opposite the
> realm of phenomena. What I read Pirsig as doing in
> his spelling out of
> Quality is a hyper-Kantian positing of free will for
> the purposes of
> morality. Instead of placing consciousness and free
> will in humans, Pirsig
> places them in the very fabric of reality. Quality
> is undefined. It is
> the "real world." It is also where the values for
> ethics and morality
> exist. Once again, this narrative has Pirsig
> following Kant's path.
>
> Matt
>
__________________________________________________
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 - 16:06:21 BST