[MD] Free Will

[X Acto]

> Ron:
> You then led me to the understanding that where MoQ points to is
> Dynamic Quality which you also link with the idea of "freedom from choice".
>
> And you claimed that these are not your own contentions that they are indeed
> THE MoQ's.

Dan:

Need I quote LILA again?

"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." [LILA}

Dan comments:

There it is, in black print. I've offered this quote at least a half
dozen times now. It is straight from LILA. Look it up yourself if you
doubt me. It is in every copy of LILA that I own. I am not making it
up, nor am I making any claims. Clearly, you disagree the MOQ. I don't
see any reason to slander me about it though by saying I am claiming
something and then insinuating that it isn't so.

Ron:
It is when I feel you a puposely misrepresenting it to support your own
values. Slander? lets not be ridiculous. I suggested that you were using it
out of context to support your views.


>Ron:
> The counter arguement I make
>
> 1: Choice is reality, every last bit

Dan:
This is why I said you are in agreement with John. Here, you seem to
be equating Quality as being synonymous with choice. I see nothing in
the MOQ to substantiate such a notion. If you do, please point out the
quotes.

Ron:
Here's one, a conclusion right after the quotes you hold a supporting
"no choice"

"
. In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are 
composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of 
cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws 
of cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse 
direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from 
the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. 
If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors 
are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must 
exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of 
view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an 
electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants 
to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does.
So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, 
is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns 
of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that 
they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 
'betterness' - this beginning response to Dynamic Quality - is an 
elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based."

Ron adds:
this conclusion seems to blow your whole arguement out of the water
as the legitimate interpretation of THE MoQ.

>Ron:
> 2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work

Dan:
Natural selection is at work on the biological level, yes.

>Ron:
> 3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness"

Dan:
"Betterness" and "not this, not that" are not mutually exclusive. In
fact, they are both pointing at Dynamic Quality.

Ron:
I still am having a hard time linking the meaning of "not this, not that"
with betterness. Betterness is clearly choice . "some things are better
than others"