[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[Steven Peterson]

Hi dmb,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve said to Dan:
>
> ...The exact quote I was referencing is “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.” dmb takes this to mean that WE have "free will" to the extent we follow DQ and are determined to the extent that WE are controlled by static patterns. ... I do notice in RMPs reformulation of the issue the notion of "we" as well as "the will" is conspicuously absent. dmb sees these notions as implied.  ...Instead of arguing whether or not Pirsig's statement is a middle ground between free will and determinism [dmb] or better viewed as a rejection of both horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma in favor of a whole new reformulation of the question of freedom [steve], we might move forward toward discussing Pirsig's reformulation itself. Pirsig says, “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.” So our behavior is free to some extent and not free to some extent.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> As far as I can tell, you're the only one who is NOT talking about Pirsig's reformulation. You keep pretending that I'm not talking about freedom and constraint within the terms of Pirsig's reformulation no matter how many times I tell you otherwise. My claims have nothing to do with the claims of the straw man you've invented. As a result, you are arguing with nobody about nothing. One can only wonder why, I suppose, but I'd guess that it's a desperation move aimed at avoiding the actual claims.

Steve:
Instead of shifting to the "straw man" defense, why not just say that
you now understand and agree with what I have been saying all
along--that the MOQ denies both horns of the traditional free
will/determinism debate by denying the fundamental premise upon which
it rests? That would be the honest and honorable thing to do here.

Best,
Steve