[MD] What is determinism?

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:The problem with this definition is that the MOQ agrees that "our actions are not REALLY chosen by us" since "us" doesn't have any REALmetaphysical status. Lila doesn't REALLY have the patterns, the patterns have Lila. So this definition doesn't work to show how theMOQ disagrees with determinism.


Ron commented:
Not so. Because you based your whole case on the use of the word "us". 



Steve replied:
The point is that it doesn't have some _primary_ metaphysical status, so it doesn't _really_ exist.


dmb says:
By your reasoning, Steve, Pirsig's reformulation doesn't work in the MOQ either because the "one" whose behavior is both free and controlled to some extent doesn't REALLY exist. By that reasoning, everyone who ever used a pronoun is wrong about the MOQ. Clearly, this is one of those meaningless, catch-all criticisms. In fact, it's downright stupid.

Steve continued:
My concern here is not for the word "us," which is easy to describe without unnecessary baggage, but with the word "REALLY" which calls up all that metaphysical baggage--appearance versus reality crap.

dmb says:
Leaving aside the fact that you're done the old Platteral shift here (moving your objection from the nature of the self to the appearance-reality distinction), you just committed that error yourself in the previous lines, telling us what Lila REALLY is. On top of that, the definition of determinism includes, by implication if not explicitly, a denial of free will. It entails a claim that what appears to be our volitional action is actually an illusion. But of course the MOQ is not asserting determinism and I am not making any such claim either. But determinism, by definition, does make that claim - and so do you.