[MD] freewill

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John to Ron]
I noticed that freewill is Quality. ... Has anybody noticed?

[Arlo]
I don't think I'd phrase it like this. You *might* be able to pull 
off an analogy like "DQ=free will/ SQ=determinism", but I think even 
that is cumbersome and largely erroneous because of the meaning of these terms.

Free will, as Ian said, is constrained by the possible. Personally, I 
think structuration theorists (like Archer, Giddens and Bourdieu) 
have given us a language to speak about not only the "range of 
possible responses" with which the organism can respond to its 
environment, but also the realization that the "constraints" are 
actually what generate wider possibility. That is, the "structure" 
and the "agency" are not opposed but mutually enabling.

I have thought over the years that Pirsig's ideas about the 
"interactions" between static patterns and Dynamic Quality mirror the 
relationship (in a great number of ways) as between "structure" and 
"agency", and when you read these theories I think you'll see why.

Within a MOQ, patterns have (based on their level and complexity) a 
certain repertoire of responses to their environments. This 
repertoire is not only "bounded" by "structure", but is also enabled 
by it. Increasing structural complexity (intra-level) or building off 
highly complex structures (inter-level) increases the "agency" 
through increasing the potential responses the pattern has.

It is the increased structural complexity (for example) that enabled 
a mouse to have a greater degree of "agency" than an amoeba, and it 
is the added "structures" created through social and intellectual 
evolution that enable even far greater "agency" in a human.

What some call "free will" does not exist independent of, or counter 
to, the "constraints" placed on the individual by structure. These 
"structures" are Quality as well, and indeed it is these very 
structures which enable the "possibilities" or "choices available" 
that people construe as "free will".

[John]
You have to choose...to care.

[Arlo]
Sure, you have to experience a variance of Quality before you can act 
on that variance. Let's say we take our friendly amoeba and instead 
of a drop of acid we put a drop of Nixium by it instead. Nixium, by 
the way, is well known to be complete "unsensible" to an amoeba, for 
all intents and purposes it is just the same as if of nothing at all 
was placed next to the amoeba.

We could say that, since the amoeba does not sense any variance in 
its experience with the introduction of the Nixium, it "doesn't care" 
that the Nixium is there. Fair enough.

And if we go back and drop some acid, which will cause the amoeba to 
notice a variance in the Quality of its experience, we can say that 
it "cares" the acid is there, and it "chooses" to move away from the 
acid. Fair enough.

The language is a bit anthropomorphic for my tastes, but I'd be okay 
with the analogy.