[MD] Free Will

[Ham Priday]

Dan and the free will defenders --
[Sorry, the previous uncompleted message got away from me.]


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".

 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. 
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 acquired a sense of freedom (with some personal responsibility 
attached to it), social identity, and the desire to acquire more knowledge, 
usually of a practical nature.

Adolescence is a period of doubt 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 
between indulging ourselves and providing for our families. The security 
blanket of childhood myths is replaced by skepticism and a desire to unravel 
the engima of existence.  This quest assumes even greater importance as we 
mature and realize that our days on earth are numbered.

Those of us who have the luxury of introspection may come to understand that 
the life-experience is driven by our sense of Value, the source of which 
transcends finite existence.  And though we seek to acquire this Value for 
ourselves, we are only able to identify with objective representations of it 
in a relational world.  Yet, at the same time, the values we seek bear the 
imprint of our desire; so that if Value is essential and life is meaningful, 
our personal experience will not have been for naught, but will be reclaimed 
by the Essential Oneness from whence it came.

Just some passing thoughts from a new octogenarian,
Ham