[MD] Free Will

[John Carl]

Here is the problem I see:


> Dan:




> Do we not use
> particular contexts to convey overall general meaning? Those contexts
> must be consistent, and as far as I know, mine are consistent.
>


John:  Fair enough, Dan, but you do realize that the same could be said of
any serious thinker.  For what is easier than being consistent with
yourself?  With your OWN understanding and interpretation?   I can think of
nothing easier.  This is just what most people do, most of the time.  And it
all works perfectly fine, until you come into conflict with another's
interpretation, and then you have to do a little work and tolerate a little
inconsistency.  For we can always be consistent, only with ourselves.

Now it seems to me, that you charge that your interpretations are
consistent, not only with yourself, but with Robert Pirsig's writings.  But
don't you see that YOUR interpretation of Robert Pirsig's writings are what
is in dispute here with Ron, so you can't really claim consistency with
Pirsig as support for your conclusion. Since it IS your conclusion.  From
what I've seen so far, Ron is just asking for some sort of intellectual
justification for that conclusion apart from more statements about the
"right" way to understand Pirsig as bequeathed to you in times of yore.


Dan:



>
> This is what I see: You have a pre-conceived notion that free will
> exists. You are sure that you are free to intellectually choose.



John:

I know this was addressed to Ron, but it applies equally to me.  I'd word it
a bit different than "pre-conceived".  I'd say I have the notion that free
will is fundamental to reality creation.  The reality we observe is
influenced by the choices we make in "which facts to observe".  Thus
ultimately, freedom is reality's fundament, just like Quality.  And in fact,
the term "quality" would be meaningless without some mechanism of choice.

Dan:


> Yet,
> the MOQ clearly states when our behavior is controlled by static
> quality patterns, we have no choice.



John:  syllogisms, Dan.  They'll fuck with you, every time.  We can choose
to abandon our choice.  We can choose to live in a world where we have no
freedom.  Paradoxical, isn't it?

WHEN our behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality, THEN we have
no choice (anymore).

But we can decide to follow DQ, obviously, or the whole of Pirsig's
formulation would be meaningless.  Why lay out the alternatives if you don't
have any choice in the matter?  Au contraire, I believe it only makes sense
if Pirsig was trying to show a better way.  A loftier choice - follow DQ.
All this would be utterly ridiculous, if there was no choice or no such
thing as choice.

Sorry if I skip around and address only the parts I feel like... I figure
since this was mainly addressed to Ron (even with the ubiquitous "everyone"
at the masthead)  I'll just dip in as the spirit moves.

Dan:

>
> Secondly, I understand what you're saying. But it is not consistent
> with the framework of the MOQ. You are arguing for static quality
> choices. The MOQ states that when our behavior is controlled by static
> quality, we are without choice.


John:

 Look at your  "WE" (those who chose to follow sq)  are without choice -
those who choose to be controlled by static patterns.  But all patterns
contain many choices, many paths and this factor of choice is existant, even
when we have chosen to reject our own freedom.


Dan:



> What is written above does not support
> your point of view. If it did, then Robert Pirsig would be
> contradicting himself.
>
>

John:

I think according to your interpretation of meanings, he does contradict
himself.  Which is why I disagree with you.



>
> Dan:
> You are using choice here in the conventional, static quality sense.
>


John:  Yes?  And your problem with that is?   Words have conventional,
static quality and I've seen how this "special MoQ sense" of words type
argument gets used all the time to ill-effect in the understandability and
perpetuation of the metaphysic.

But aside from that, there is an ambiguity in the very heart of Quality
itself, as a term, which is embraced for it's power to convey by being more
things than one at once.

Dan:


> Read the passage you posted again, carefully. Does it say anything
> about choice? No. You are reading something into the passage that
> isn't there. Moral judgement is discernment between low quality and
> high quality. Only when we follow Dynamic Quality are we free.
>
>
John:  All moral judgment is predicated upon the freedom of a chooser.
Following DQ, is a choice.  But the way you look at it, any choice made
obviates one's freedom.  I disagree.



> Dan:
>
> Moral judgement isn't free will.



John:

Agreed.  Moral judgment isn't freewill, but it is dependent upon the
existence of free will for it's meaning. Free will is fundamental to  Moral
judgement.

Dan:


> It is the eVALUEation of evidence, or
> discernment, if you will.



John:

Usually within. a social sphere.

Dan:

Judgement is intellect at work. But it is
> constrained to the static quality evidence at hand, not free to
> choose.



John:  Two things.... One, as already mentioned, "static quality evidence at
hand" is itself the end result of a process involving choice and Two,
Judgment (or intellect at work) is by definition "free to choose" amongst
static quality patterns of evidence at hand.  That's mainly what it does,
Dan!  That's what its for.  How can you argue against its ability to do its
job when you're trying to convince Ron and others to make different
intellectual choices from "the static quality evidence at hand"?

Dan:


> As I mentioned to Ham, I'd love to be a starting pitcher for
> the Chicago Cubs. Ain't gonna happen. The evidence at hand constrains
> my choices.
>
>
John:

I've heard this one before and it just seems to be stupid to me, Dan.  Sorry
for the insult, but those who believe that because they are not free to
choose impossible things, then they are not free seem childish to me. You've
held your breath till you turn blue and haven't gotten what you wanted and
thus conclude there is no choice in your reality.  Choice is in "what you
want".  Freedom comes from what you value, not what you attain.  And
sometimes, if you value something strongly enough, you attain it, even
though at one time it seemed impossible.

Perhaps it the innate childishness of this position that influenced how the
epithet "moronist" came so easily to mind when I went 'round and 'round with
the same issue with Krimel.

  Hmm... come to think of it, maybe Case was just an avatar for Glover!
Heh-heh.  Sorry to blow your cover.



Dan:

Of course. And I really do have other pressing matters to attend to. I
am both willing and able to explain myself; I think I have; I just
fail to see the value in running over the same old ground again and
again.


Me too Dan.  Probably be out of the loop for a couple of weeks.  I'm leaving
tomorrow for the Bakken oil fields.  Hoping my old RV makes it there.

Say hello to Krimel for me,


John