[MD] Free Will

[Ham Priday]

 Dan and the free will defenders --

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:48 PM, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com.net>
wrote:

> The term freedom has several meanings. To avoid confusion,
> I think the best definition to use in this circumstance is...
>
> 3. the power to determine action without restraint. [Dictionary.com]
>
>...although your definition works just as well. Most all our actions
> are constrained by social and intellectual static quality patterns.
> As long as our behaviour is ruled by static quality patterns, we are
> without choice. When we follow Dynamic Quality, which is
> undefined, we are free.

 [Dan, previously]:

> Within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological static
> quality patterns are seen as physical.  Social and intellectual static
> quality patterns arer seen as non-physical. Human beings are seen
> as a collection of all four levels of static quality plus being capable
> of responding to undefined Dynamic Quality.

Dan, what you are calling a "framework" is the ontology--or in this case,
epistemology--of a philosopher's thesis.  I hesitate to raise the question,
but isn't it possible that Pirsig is wrong?

 If you'll permit me to construct a simple word picture, I think it may help
 you to see where I'm coming from.

Since earliest recorded history humans worshipped the Sun.  It was the giver 
of life and therefore became their god.  Before it was known that man's 
survival depended on plants utilizing solar energy, ancient cultures 
considered the bright ball in the sky as a God that brought light.  The 
first civilization, the Sumerians, had many gods, including the sun.  To the 
Egyptians he was the supreme god, Ra, and the pharaoh was his earthly 
representative.  The Greeks called him Helios, who drove a fiery chariot 
across the heavens, the Romans Apollo, one of their major deities.  The 
Polynesians, the Incas, Aztecs and Mayas all worshipped the sun and made 
human sacrifices to him, and the Druids in Britain built Stonehenge in his 
honor.

Gods were planetary in ancient nations, and, for one reason or another, the 
tribal people chose to pay tribute to a single deity as their protector, 
often following a world catastrophe caused by rival god.  The fact that the 
peoples of the earth were confused by planets and comet trails, and Yahwe 
was the name of the deity associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of 
Egypt, had far-reaching consequences for the development of a "personalized" 
religion and the movement toward monotheism.

The writers who penned the scriptures saw Yahwe as the Creator of all 
things, and Love was attributed to His paternal power.  Biblical scribes 
were pointing to an essential attribute of the deity--the fulfillment of 
human desire.  Although the Judeo-Christian god was worshipped as a Supreme 
Being, it also satisfied man's quest for a first cause or absolute source. 
But it was the redeeming power of Love ascribed to this Being that gave 
believers a god/man reciprocity missing in polytheistic religions.

Everything we want out of life or that we cherish in existence manifests our 
desire for the wellspring of Value.  Since there is no such thing as 
unrealized love or value, and Value cannot exist without a transcendent 
source, every conscious self is drawn to the source by the power of its 
value.  The faithful call this power "Divine Love", phenomenalists call it 
"intentionality", and philosophers called it the "Summum Bonum"--except for 
a secular philosopher named Robert Pirsig who called it "Quality".






God is

> We all come into the world as hungry, frightened, curious infants, 
> traumatized by the delivery process, and seeking comfort and security. 
> Our wants are initially satisfied by a mother who provides food and 
> security, and the comfort of learning to cope with a changing environment. 
> We learn to crawl, then walk, in order to explore new territory.  Later, 
> learning to talk enables us to gain the acquaintance of family and 
> friends, as well as the security that comes from social acceptance and 
> shared ideas.  Soon we are taught what is right and wrong, usually within 
> the moral context of a religious belief system.  By the time we reach 
> puberty, if properly raised, we will have assumed some personal 
> responsibility, social identity, and the desire to acquire more knowledge, 
> usually of a practical nature.
>
> Adolescence is a period of doubting for most of us.  We try to supplement 
> what we lack in self-reliance with the aid of others; we exult in our 
> successes, but also experience failures; and we typically view life as a 
> balancing act.
>
>
>
>>>Dan:
>>> Good of you to weigh in, thank you. In the framework of the MOQ,
>>> Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience, and freedom is
>>> synonymous with Dynamic Quality. So free will is neither insignificant
>>> or "illusional." When we follow experience (Dynamic Quality) we are
>>> free. And to the extent our behaviour is controlled by static quality,
>>> we are without choice.
>>>
>>> No one is forced to experience Dynamic reality.. However, everyone
>>> is forced to follow static quality patterns that make up our every day
>>> conventional reality.
>>Ham:
>> I try to think of static quality as the "experiential patterns" that
>> constitute physical objects and (in MoQ terms) human beingness as well.
>
> Dan:
> Within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological static
> quality patterns are seen as physical. Social and intellectual static
> quality patterns arer seen as non-physical. Human beings are seen as a
> collection of all four levels of static quality plus being capable of
> responding to undefined Dynamic Quality.
>
> Ham:
> It
>> is these relational patterns that we are free to choose and manipulate in
>> accordance with our individual value priorities. What we are NOT free to
>> alter are the dynamics of nature as codified by the laws of physics, 
>> which I
>> would have expected to represent the Dynamic Quality of Pirsig's thesis.
>
> Dan:
> Laws of physics are seen as intellectual static quality patterns
> within the framework of the MOQ. Dynamic Quality and the dynamic
> forces of nature are not to be confused.
>
>>Ham:
>> Your explanation seems to reverse my analysis. You say we are free to
>> follow DQ because "it is synonymous with experience," but are "forced to
>> follow SQ patterns that make up conventional [experiential?] reality."
>
> Dan:
> Yes, I suppose I am reversing your analysis. Within the framework of
> the MOQ, experience is seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality, which
> is both undefined/infinitely definable. Static quality patterns
> constrain conventional reality. I don't know if "forced" is a term I
> agree with... "compelled" seems to work better.
>
> Ham:
> I
>> don't know what to make of this interpretation. For if DQ is the primary
>> reality that accounts for the design and evolution of the
>> universe--including the emergence of man--how can it be open to man's
>> choices? And if man is also forced to follow static patterns, then there 
>> is
>> no freedom.
>
> Dan:
> Intellectual static quality patterns are responsible for the design
> and evolution of the universe as we know it to be. Within the
> framework of the MOQ, ideas come before matter.
>
> On the free will vs determinism controversy, the MOQ is quite clear in
> stating that when our behaviour is controlled by static quality
> patterns, it is without choice. It doesn't say we are forced into
> following static quality patterns, however. We are free to follow
> Dynamic Quality.
>
>>Dan:
>>> As long as human beings follow static quality patterns, they are
>>> without choice. Cultural patterns prescribe very definite sets of
>>> behaviour that if a person steps outside of, they will either be
>>> imprisoned or eventually grow ill and die.
>>Ham:
>> We shall all eventually grow ill and die according to unchangeable laws 
>> of
>> nature. But while we are alive and well, we can choose to become
>> carpenters, writers or painters; vote for liberal or conservative
>> politicians; indulge in gourmet meals or fast foods; and support or 
>> oppose
>> cultural norms, even if we are ostracized or imprisoned for doing so.
>
> Dan:
> I think it is better to say we are free to choose to become
> carpenters, writers, etc, to the extent that our behaviour is
> controlled by preconditions set up by those static quality patterns.
> In other words, as much as I would like it, I cannot choose to be a
> starting pitcher for the Chicago Cubs. For one thing, I am 56 years
> old. And for another, I didn't have the physical talent for that
> particular choice even 30 years ago. My choices are constrained by
> static quality patterns that dictate certain preconditions that don't
> always exist.
>
>>
>> Ham:
>>>
>>> In order for man to be a free agent, he is created as a 'being-aware',
>>> an individuated entity that stands apart from the Creator or Source.
>>> He can be neither indigenous to it nor the essence of its value. But so
>>> that he may realize this value without the bias of absolute knowledge,
>>> the psychic core of man's being is value-sensibility. In existential
>>> terms,
>>> cognizant awareness and free choice are possible only by virtue of
>>> the fact that man is an autonomous entity.
>>
>> Dan:
>>>
>>> I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Dynamic Quality in
>>> MOQ terms is what you are naming cognizant awareness. However,
>>> it is neither a Creator or Source, yet it is both source and goal of
>>> experience. Human beings do not stand apart from Dynamic Quality.
>>Ham:
>> Cognizant awareness is not the source but is proprietary to the 
>> autonomous
>> self. It is not collective or transferable to other individuals. That
>> doesn't sound to me like Dynamic Quality, Dan.
>
> Dan:
>
> Thank you for the correction. I obviously misread what you're saying.
>
> Ham:
> But if DQ is both the source
>> and goal of experience, is experience not the possession of Quality 
>> rather
>> than the conscious subject? If so, how is human experience not
>> predetermined?
>
> Dan:
>
> Yes, experience is not us as human beings possessing Dynamic Quality.
> It is us as human beings being possessed by "it." But that doesn't
> translate into Dynamic Quality as being some kind of external agent.
> Experience isn't predetermined until it has become intellectualized
> into static quality patterns.
>
>>
>> Ham:
>>>
>>> [U]nless man is an independent creature, capable of realizing
>>> value for himself and free to act in accordance with his choices,
>>> human life has no purpose or meaning other than to complete
>>> the evolutionary process of an insentient universe.
>>
>> Dan:
>>>
>>> Yes, part of the problem I've had with your posts over the years
>>> is your not caring what Robert Pirsig (or the MOQ) says. This is
>>> after all a forum dedicated to his work. Be that as it may though,
>>> within the framework of the MOQ, human beings are not independent
>>> of the universe. You seem to be claiming they are, which puts you
>>> at drastic odds with the MOQ and anything I can say to the contrary.
>>> Still, I feel it is good to at least recognize these differences, for 
>>> what
>>> it
>>> is worth.
>>Ham:
>> Thanks for your latitude, Dan, and I apologize for departing from the
>> conventional interpretation. But I do not claim that human beings are
>> independent of the universe. I'm saying that individuals are free agents 
>> in
>> a universe largely of their own making, that the ground of this universe 
>> is
>> Value (dfferentiated by nothingness), and that the uncreated source of 
>> man
>> and his universe is Essence.
>
> Dan:
>
> Thank you once again for the correction.
>
>>Ham:
>> It is not Quality but man himself whose sensibility determines what 
>> goodness
>> is, and it is by his measure that morality and justice are established as
>> cultural norms. For morality and behavior to be dictated by an external
>> source would deprive man of his freedom and the capacity to act in
>> accordance with his values.
>
> Dan:
>
> I don't think we are as far apart as it might seem. Quality and
> morality are seen as the "groundstuff" of reality within the framework
> of the MOQ, not as an external source. Static quality patterns do not
> deprive human beings of freedom... rather they constrain and compell
> us to act in accordance with social and intellectual rules of
> behaviour, without which there would be no civilization.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Dan
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html