[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[david buchanan]

Steve said to Dan:
...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.

dmb replied:
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.



Steve replied to the reply:
(I'm not pretending anything.)


dmb says:

Look again at the sentence you wrote to Dan. Did you or did you not characterize my position as a middle ground between the horns and contrast it with a rejection of the traditional SOM dilemma? That is more than just an implication and that's specifically what I mean when I say you are pretending that I'm talking about free will and determinism in terms of the traditional SOM dilemma. That is the basis of my charge. If your denial is to have any plausibility, you're going to have to say something about the substance of your own sentence, the one above that follows "Steve said to Dan". As it stands, you've only offered a naked contradiction, unclothed by any argument, reason, explanation or support of any kind. 


Steve continued:
We agree that in the MOQ our behavior is free to some extent and not free to some extent, but what does this mean? If reality is Quality, then I wonder "Free from what? Controlled by what?"   I think Pirsig's reformulation cashes out to, as Matt said months ago, "when you be static, you be static. When you be dynamic, you be dynamic!" It doesn't tell us how to tell the difference and give us a basis for culpability and praiseworthiness in the sense you have been punching up.


dmb says:

Pirsig's formulation cashes out to what? I do not get what you're saying and the way you're saying it - between questions that seem to express a general bewilderment - makes your vague claim seem even more vague. These basic questions seem to be very much at odds with the certainty with which you've been making claims on this issue too. 

Why does the equation of Quality and reality make you wonder what we are free from or what we are controlled by? If reality is Quality, then freedom and constraint are both features of reality. What's the problem. You can't be saying that freedom and constraint can only come from outside of reality, so what are you getting at? 

If we are controlled to the extent that we follow static patterns, then freedom is just freedom from that control. What's the problem? I mean, aren't both of your questions "free from what?" and "controlled by what" already answered in the Pirsig quote? That's how I see it, so I guess I don't even know what you're asking.

Pirsig's formulation doesn't tell us how to tell the difference? Well, that's a much broader question and answering it is just a matter of understanding that particular formulation within the larger context of the MOQ. That's one of the reasons for reminding you that Pirsig has reformulated the issue on the premise that value goes all the way down and that the evolutionary unfolding of the levels is a matter of growth toward ever-increasing freedom. This could just as right be put in terms of evolution away from control. In fact, Pirsig discusses the preferences of atoms and the origins of life itself as a movement toward undefined betterness right there in the same passage where we find the reformulation. It's very much part of the explanation.