[MD] Metaphysical Baggage

[david buchanan]

Steve said:
For Pirsig, freedom is associated with following dynamic quality. His hot stove analogy gives us one paradigmatic example of what it is like to follow DQ which is in no way what anyone means by free will.

Pirsig's response to Hugo, who made the same assertion as Steve:
"Traditionally, this [free will as the ability of the autonomous entity to choose] is the meaning of free will. But the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels with increasing freedom to make choices as one ascends the levels. At the lowest inorganic level, the freedom is so small that it can be said that nature follows laws but the quantum theory shows that within the laws the freedom is still there..." (Annotn 75)
 dmb said to Steve:
See, that is your often repeated claim [that following DQ is IN NO WAY what ANYONE means by free will] and that is utterly defeated by Pirsig's response to Hugo.


Steve replied:
Given that my claim has always been that what Pirsig means by "free will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term, you'll have to explain how exactly the LC quote defeats rather than supports my position.


dmb says:

It's hard to see how this point could be any simpler or clearer and so I'm quite amazed that you think this needs to be further explained.

You said, the MOQ's freedom is associated with following dynamic quality, which is in no way what anyone means by free will. Pirsig says the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels. You say that following DQ is not what ANYONE means by free will but Pirsig is the most relevant someone and that's IS what he means. 

And, on top of that, despite your demonstrably false claims to the contrary, your claim has definitely NOT always been "that what Pirsig means by "free will" is very very different from what is traditionally meant by the term". I mean, everyone knows that the MOQ's free will is different from the traditional view. That has never been in dispute and nobody ever said he was defending the traditional view or the traditional metaphysical baggage. The Pirsig quote defeats your position that following DQ is in no way a form of free will, that nobody think of free will that way. Well, obviously, that's just wrong. No only does SOMEBODY think of it that way, the author of the MOQ thinks of it that way.


It's very hard to believe that ANYONE needs this to be explained. I'm just baffled by your apparent inability to derive meaning from sentences. As I see it, one should be able to clearly see the point by simply putting your claim next to Pirsig's comment. It is self-explanatory. It's about as complicated as the instructions on a shampoo bottle. Lather and rinse. Repeat as necessary. You gotta wash that ban (of the term 'free will') right out of your hair.


Even further, this not only explains exactly how the LC quote defeats your position, it also explains how your position is defeated by the original reformulation as we find it in Lila. The reductionist logic that produces causal determinism "can be applied in A REVERSE DIRECTION", Pirsig says. "We can just as easily deduce the MORALITY of atoms from the observation that chemistry professor are, in general, MORAL. If chemistry professors EXERCISE CHOICE, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that ATOMS MUST EXERCISE CHOICE TOO." 


Are we supposed to believe that exercising choice is in no way what anyone means by free will? No, of course not. That would be super stupid because that's exactly how "free will" is defined in the dictionary, as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." In short, Steve, your claim is at odds with everything. It defies proper use of terms, defies logic, philosophical encyclopedia, the primary texts, commentary from the author of the primary text, the general spirit of pragmatism, the spirit of radical empiricism and it's at odds with the overall thrust of the MOQ, especially its emphasis on freedom and morality. To put the same idea a different way, your claim is supported by nothing at all.

It's as if you are afflicted with some kind of conceptual dyslexia wherein everything is upside-down and backwards, wherein the obvious needs to be explained, where opposites are equated and where questions are posed after they've been answered five times already. I sincerely hope that you're only pretending to be that stupid. Your claims are pure nonsense either way, but if you sincerely believe this drivel then you have my sympathy, at least. If you are being honest here, then I can only wonder how you manage to keep a job or otherwise function in life.