Hey gang,
I am still a strong believer that Pirsig did a poor job of explaining the
free will issue. On the other hand, I think that the MOQ could adequately
address the issue, at least to my satisfaction.
The problem with free will is that it is an oxymoron. In fact, it may be the
ultimate SOM platypus. It is dependent upon an assumption of a self that is
completely independent of the environment and the past. But, there is no
isolated, independent self. There is no "Subject" absent an environment.
In my opinion, free will is the experience of action that is in alignment
with one's definition of one's self. It is applied when we sense
control/influence of an action.
For example, if we get angry and are tempted to respond to a situation with
an emotional outburst, but our social self is successful at suppressing this
outburst, then we consider it an act of free will. Our actions were in
alignment with the preferred pattern that defined us in that situation.
Alternatively, if we can't control our rage, we define that situation as
uncontrollable or a lapse of willpower. Of course, in the MOQ, we understand
that all these various collections of patterns of various levels are what
create us (similar to Bo's recent post).
Instead of calling it free will, we should call it choice or influence. We do
have choice. We do have influence. What we don't have is choice floating
freely in some transcendental realm divorced of our past or our universe. No
big loss in my opinion.
Rog
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