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

[david buchanan]

Andre said to Steve:
...I suggested that the 'causality' you refer to is of the SOM variety which keeps on invoking the old 'free will vs. determinism' controversy. ..What the MOQ suggests is that the planting of the brush 'there' was Dynamically arrived at, non-mediated, non-intellectual. But when you then argue that DQ 'caused', or 'determined' or 'produced' the placement of the brush by the painter then you are implying "that Dynamic Quality is a part of a cause and effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking. But Dynamic Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all cause and effect systems are static patterns."( Annotn 56). ..Herrigel describes this 'moment' as well in Zen in the Art of Archery. To suggest that DQ 'caused' the release of the arrow is to miss the point. "In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical term that can be replaced by 'value'... The only difference between causation and value is that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference". (LILA, p 107) ..I hope that Pirsig's comment in Annotn 56 indicates sufficiently why I felt that your position resurrects a SOM-like thinking.



dmb says:

I think that's right and would add that Steve makes a similar move with respect to static patterns. There are several variations of this move but the basic idea seems to be predicated on a strange reading of MOQ's self. Since we "are" preferences we can't "have" any preferences. Steve seems to interpret this as a kind of value determinism wherein these patterns of preference are treated as the determining causes of our behavior. Pirsig says that we are not free to the extent that we are controlled by static patterns and since we ARE static patterns, Steve's reasoning apparently goes, the extent to which we are controlled is 100%. Thus I call it "value determinism", which I think is both accurate and very generously non-pejorative. Insofar as that label undercuts the seriousness of the charge, maybe it's too generous. I also think Pirsig comment about the "only difference between causation and value" shows why "value determinism" is an oxymoronic, incoherent concept. The fact is that trying to conceptualize values as causal forces not only misses the point, it undoes the point. It converts values back into causes. It puts the MOQ's ideas into SOM's terms. It turns the solution right back into the problem you were trying to solve in the first place.