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

[Andre Broersen]

Andre:
Hi Steve, I'll clarify some more where my confusion lies: When the 
artist in front of the canvas goes: "There"...that's where the brush 
goes...I get the sense that you still argue that that action is 
(pre)determined.

Because I am not sure that when you say:

"The theory of free will predicts reality to be exactly as it is. So does the theory of determinism"... if you are kidding or not.

Not sure what "theory of freewill" you are talking about. I would've thought that freewill is unpredictable/predictable but in the sense in which Pirsig places it. Namely: Most of our lives are spent empirically verifying that something has higher value than something else". (Annotn 121)

Which gets back to the original argument that "To the extent that one's behaviour is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behaviour is free". (LILA, p 160)

There is also of course the very interesting comment Pirsig puts, in answer to Maggie's question about the Quality Event (QE). Maggie asks: "The QE is the point at which static and Dynamic Quality interact or static quality patterns of value interact with other levels or DQ? Which is it? To which Pirsig replies:" It is the point at which patterns emerge where there were no static patterns before. It is not a two-way street, and therefore the term 'interaction' seems inappropriate."( Annotn 61)

There you go...other points to ponder perhaps?