[MD] Free Will

[John Carl]

Well Ham,

your words thrill me and I agree with every word.  You put it most
excellently as well.  I just can't understand how anybody would choose to
not understand such plain and well-written rhetoric.

Yours,

John

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Marsha (Steve quoted)  --
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>  Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation,
>> in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern?
>>
>
> [Steve]:
>
>> Yes, causation is understood as a stable pattern of preference,
>> B routinely values precondition A. Further, B literally IS a set
>> of such preferences.
>>
>
> [Marsha, on 5/1]:
>
>> I un-ask the question.   Wherever those preferences lie,
>> they do not inherently exist.
>>
>
> Whoa!  Hold on there, Marsha.  You have a valid point that deserves a
> better answer than Steve provided.  The causation argument is superficial at
> best, besides which cause-and-effect is only man's way of interpreting
> events as sequential in time.  As a consequence, you have been led to the
> depressing conclusion that preference is deterministic.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth.  The very fact that the primary
> source (God, DQ or Essence) is hidden from us and regarded as "undefinable"
> supports the principle of Free Will.
> [Read the 'Hiddenness' essay on my Values Page at
> www.essentialism.net/balance.htm]
> Look at it this way: If you were suddenly granted total knowledge of past
> and future events -- including your ultimate destiny -- what freedom would
> you have?  What choices would you make?
>
> If you think about it, it becomes obvious that in order to exercise free
> will, you must be "innocent" of Absolute Truth.  That's why we humans are
> denied empirical evidence of metaphysical reality, proof of God's existence,
> or knowledge of the meaning and purpose of our existence.  Such
> understanding would subvert and prejudice our role as the free agents of
> value.
>
> Moreover, we do affect the world we live in.  The laws of nature are only a
> compilation of principles based on what has happened in the past, including
> events that our decisions and choices have produced or influenced.  What we
> do now and in the future is a microcosm of these laws.  Pirsig called
> experience "the cutting edge of reality", by which he meant that the reality
> we create for ourselves is actualized by experience within the parameters of
> universal order. To say that everything is fixed as "predetermined patterns
> of Quality" is to ignore that we constantly remake the world in accordance
> with our value preferences.
>
> So ask Steve to put away those causal syllogisms.  Free Will Lives!  And
> you and I are living examples of this freedom.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Ham
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> From: "Steven Peterson" <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi Marsha,
> When Pirsig says, A causes be can be thought of as B values
> precondition A. I added that there is nothing more to B (whatever the
> collection pattern being thought about)
> than such preferences since preference is another word value and
> since in the MOQ everything identifiable is thought of as a pattern of
> value or collection of patterns.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:19 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> HI Steve,
>>
>> I don't understand the last part of your statement: "Further, B literally
>> IS a
>> set of such preferences." Could you please elaborate.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>