[MD] Free Will

[Andre Broersen]

dmb to Steve:

Also, why does the question of free will have to be framed around an "independent" agent. In what sense is such agency independent? Why can't the issue be framed as agency within the whole range and context of static patterns?

Andre:
This is what disturbs me about this incessant 'willing' to free will debate ( and I think Dan points to as well). The issue is taken out of any context or placed in a fabricated one. But, as dmb, Dan, the MOQ points out, we are not independent. We are not free to the extent that we follow static patterns of value.Call the act of choosing between static patterns 'free' if you like but that is meaningless. That has nothing to do with freedom. That is the trick, the joke that a substance- oriented world places upon us. It simply means that you have a choice. And, to really get the message home, the point is made that you are also exercising your freedom when you decide not to choose!Wow, what freedom!

Meaningless crap!

And since we're into examples...here's one: you have the choice between strawberry ice cream and chocolate ice cream!(that is all!!) Do you guys call that CHOICE?!! An expression of 'freedom"?  An exercise in 'Free will?". Come on!! Can we just stay on a pragmatic level here?

Of course I can cite many more ridiculous examples but I assume you get the picture....(what house do you want, what job, what book, what fridge, what woman, what holiday, what suit, what car, what TV program, what political party, what tree do you want to chop down?).

The only thing the MOQ claims is that 'most of our lives are spent empirically verifying that something has higher value than something else. We have that flexibility, because of requisite variety.

We are free also to follow Dynamic Quality...in the MOQ sense, the Zen sense, in which case I would warn you for static repercussions.