[MD] Freewill

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:
Like I already pointed out, Sam does not deny that we are responsible for our actions. The "Free Will" that he does deny is a metaphysical notion.



Steve replied:
You've insisted that causality is metaphysical notion, and free will is a concept that is based on causality, so I can't see how you can make this move to distinguish a metaphysical versus a non-metaphysical conception of free will. Plus, since you are interpreting Pirsig to be supporting free will as the capacity to respond to DQ, and since DQ is a metaphysical concept, then free will in your take on Pirisg must also be a metaphysical notion. 

dmb says:
Free will is based on causality? DQ is a metaphysical concept? Well, I guess this would be another major source of confusion. Not sure how many times I've said it already but I know it's quite a lot. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT FREE WILL AS A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT, except you. You are projecting this metaphysical dimension onto my assertions despite the fact that I have said otherwise at least a dozen times. 
And I have also been saying over and over again that the will is practical and empirical. AND Dynamic Quality is not metaphysical either. It is called the immediate flux of life, direct everyday experience and the primary EMPIRICAL reality. 
On top of that, we are talking about free will in the MOQ, wherein causality has be removed and value put in it's place and Pirsig's claim that value goes all the way down as a postulate.
Given all these basic errors, it's no wonder that communicating has been so difficult. 
Please hear it, Steve. I've told you this over and over again. The question of free will is not a metaphysical question. It's a practical and empirical question and Pirsig's answer is also practical and empirical. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES. The extent to which you are adding that unwanted ingredient to this debate is the extent to which this debate becomes pointless shadow boxing because you're talking to NOBODY's point. 


Steve said:
When we talk about moral responsibility, Harris says we are talking about the blameworthiness of those holding bad intentions. Harris wrote, "To say that I was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them." It sounds to me that now that you perhaps understand that Harris was intending to be making the case that moral responsibility _doesn't_ die with free will ...


dmb says:
Those are the same lines I pulled out of the Harris quote. I think it's clear that he is describing a practical, non-metaphysical version of human agency. If your actions are a continuation of your intentions and goals then those actions are an expression of your will. Bad intentions are the whole difference between an immoral act and mere accidents or a causal chain of events. It seems pretty clear to me that Sam's book is a confusing and inappropriate way to get at the meaning of Pirsig's reformulation AND I think you are misreading him anyway. The lines above describe what it means to be responsible for our actions and since this is a non-metaphysical claim, this responsibility does not depend on any metaphysical entities, which is what Sam is rejecting when he rejects "Free Will". I think you are confusing these two things. Sam uses "Free Will" to identify this rejected metaphysical notion and he asserts a kind of neurological determinism. The MOQ is not asserting determinism, and so you take Sam's reasoning over to the MOQ so that the freedom we do have there comes out as quite meaningless and inert. In effect, you mix these two incompatible positions and then conclude there can be no free will whatsoever, not even in the MOQ as a practical and empirical concept.

I'm trying to be patient here, Steve, but my frustration is probably leaking through anyway. At this point, it takes a lot of restraint to stop myself from being very, very frank. Please, hear this without the fireworks. 

I'm begging and pleading. Please, will you kindly shut the fuck up about metaphysical entities? Seriously. As long as you do that, you're simply not talking to me. You're simply not listening. You're talking to nobody.