[MD] "Could have acted differently" v. "the extent to which we perceive DQ"

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan, all,
>
>
>>>> dmb says:
>>>> I just don't understand how your mind works. It's simple, Steve. Free will is just another way to say that you could have acted differently. Free will is, as my dictionary puts it, "the ability to act one's own discretion". As I have already said many times, that is all I mean by free will. Every dictionary and encyclopedia backs this claim and I don't see any reason why the MOQ would defy the english language. Unlike yourself.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Yes, I would say that free will and "could have acted differently" are
>> both static quality illusions in the MOQ. Once we act, there's no
>> going back. Could have beens and would have beens are regrets, nothing
>> more. Yesterday is gone. And it ain't coming back...
>
>
> Steve:
> I'm confused. You say, "yes," as though you were agreeing with dmb
> here, but what follows is clear disagreement with dmb. dmb says that
> the MOQ supports the notion of free will and that free will simply
> means "could have acted differently." I agree with dmb that that is
> what free will means, but based on what you have said (in agreement
> with me, and I think Horse, and Arlo) you _dis_agree with dmb that the
> MOQ supports such a notion and requires it to support moral
> responsibility. I think we both see Pirsig's notion of freedom as the
> extent to which we perceive DQ as something very different from the
> traditional notion of free will as "could have acted differently." dmb
> is trying to slip free will as "could have acted differently" in the
> back door of the MOQ.


Dan:

The MOQ does support the notion of free will. But it renders the
question meaningless, like thinking that one could have acted
differently. From what I understand, this is what dmb has been saying
all along... please correct me if I'm wrong though.

>
>
>
>
>>> Steve:
> ...
>>> What I think would help me most would be to understand what the past
>>> conditional "could" refers to in this context. "Could" if only _what_
>>> were true? I've asked a couple times, but for some reason, dmb doesn't
>>> think "could have acted differently" needs any explication. For me
>>> there is a clear dependence on some conditional, some "if only,"
>>> inherent in the word "could." I just can't make sense of "could have
>>> acted differently" without a "could if _what_ were true?"
>>
>> Dan:
>> You seem to be asking if there is some way of going back for a re-do.
>> There isn't.
>
> Steve:
> I don't think there is either. So I am still wondering what dmb means
> by "could" when he asserts (incorrectly I think) that the MOQ defends
> a "could have acted differently notion of free will. I see Pirsig as
> rejecting both free will and determinism in favor of a very different
> conception of freedom from "could have acted differently."

Dan:

I would say that the MOQ both rejects and defends the notions of free
will and determinism. They are both right in their own limited ways
but in the larger, more expanded picture painted by the MOQ, free will
and determinism are seen as meaningless.

Thank you,

Dan