[MD] Free Will

[Ham Priday]

On Tues, 6/28/11 at 4:23 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:



> Hi Ham,
>
> Free Will adds indeterminacy into our actions, otherwise they
> wouldn't be free.  What in me defines the indeterminate so that
> actions are not predestined?  Pirsig very cleverly suggested a
> metaphysics DQ/SQ where DQ is a reality which remains
> indefinable and knowable.  I suggest that emotions are DQ only,
> while intellect is DQ/SQ.
>
> Evolution defines reality in definable levels in existence.  Calcium
> is found in a rock and in my bones.  DQ/SQ evolution suggests
> levels in existence.  I don't exist the same as the rock, and there is
> something in me that identifies this, and the horse of my actions
> freely chooses which way to go, sometimes right, sometimes left.
>
> To know DQ in an evolutionary environment (morality) is enabled
> in a metaphysics which recognizes undefined (free) defined (actions).
> I suggest the emotional level is DQ only. I have to arrange my reality
> in some order, even though my indefinable emotions tell me there is
> always something more.

Joe, in my epistemology Will is simply intention or what we want.  And the 
fact that what we want is often not what a deterministic Nature gives us is 
itself proof that our Will is free.  Free Will is not something "added" to 
our actions; it is intrinsic to our value sensibility.  What we desire or 
want out of life is the Value of our essential Source.  We sense this Value 
as something we do not possess but intend for ourselves; yet we can only 
realize it in our experience of otherness.  This drives us to create, 
explore, and manipulate an objective world which represents the values we 
feel intrinsically.

You seem to treat Free Will as an emotional-based idée fixé that is imposed 
on you by an "evolutionary environment" which you call "morality".  I see 
morality as a code of behavior man has invented to ensure the survival of 
civilization.  There is nothing particularly "moral" in the law of gravity 
or the evolution of the species.  On the other hand, Free Will (the power to 
choose) is a moral principle exercised by a value-sensible agent.  And I 
think you slight Value ('DQ') when you restrict it to an emotional level. 
For example, it is not the emotions but intellect that defines the levels of 
existence.  It is not only emotion but reason that determines the value of a 
work of art.  And it takes more than compassion to establish the laws and 
enforce the penalties of a just society.

Frankly, I find too many operands left "undefined" in the MoQ construct to 
make it workable.  You claim to "know" DQ but can't define it, much less 
acknowledge it as the uncreated source.  You say the emotions are 
"indefinable", despite an abundance of psychological, neurological, and 
endocrinology studies on the subject.  Mosr disturbing to me is that the 
majority here either reject the idea of a cognizant agent altogether or 
blithely accept Marsha's "ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns" as a definition for 
selfness.

As I've said before, it's meaningless to argue for Free Will unless you 
acknowledge the existence of the willing agent.

Thanks, Joe.

--Ham