He says much more about free will than that. If you have an
electronic copy of Lila (which I do not, a word search will pull this
out. You can also do a Google book search, which is not as good.
It is not "my free will", I am simply taking what RMP says about free
will being assumed by everything. It makes sense for expounding on
the Moral fabric of the universe. For if we have to do things, we
cannot say that we are moral, can we.
What Pirsig is presenting below (to put it in context), in my opinion,
is the traditional nature v nurture argument. That is, we can reflect
on reality as somewhat determined, and somewhat free. Because we
reify the world into static patterns of value, the nature of such
reification is somewhat determined by the structure of our brains.
What we do with such static presentation is not. So, Pirsig is not
saying anything new here, just presenting it in MoQ terminology. Of
course this is just a manner of presentation of his, and he would not
claim such a thing to be True, as science tends to do.
He also points out with the quote below, that "one" is separate from
the static patterns of Quality. In that way "one" can be controlled
by such. This would point to the existence of Self, in my opinion.
Otherwise he would have said that static patterns are
"selfcontroling". Do you see what I am getting at here. The rhetoric
reveals the existence of self, even if the rhetoric is conventional.
By "following DQ" he means acting within DQ. This is indeed what free
will does. Since DQ is not definable, neither is free will. For
something cannot act within no thing, only no thing can do that.
Othewise it would become a thing and not be acting "within" or
following the paradigm of DQ.
I hope I have made my opinion clear. You do not have to agree with
it, it is simply my view.
On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
> I know nothing of your 'free will', but I do know that RMP has said "To the
> extent that one's behavior 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 behavior is free."
> (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12)
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:05 AM, 118 wrote:
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I don't think I am confusing existences. What you are presenting are
>> contingencies. That is that patterns can only change because of
>> pre-existing conditions. This would appear to be a deterministic outlook.
>> Thus, the individual (of whatever nature) has no free will at it's
>> disposal. Pirsig states that "everything" has free will. By my
>> interpretation, this is DQ. It makes the unfolding of reality
>> "unpredictable" at the individual level. This then brings in the concept
>> of individual responsibility, and thus the Moral fabric of reality.
>> No matter how innumerable the causes you envision, there does not seem to
>> be room for morality. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see how your
>> patterns approach leaves room for free will. I am interested to see how I
>> can be corrected in my logic.
>> Patterns, if not completely tied to previous patterns, can change through
>> the principles of free will. In this way they are not the inevitable
>> result of an ultimately predictable original idea, be it the big bang or
>> some intelligent design.
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:17 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>> You seem to confuse having "no independent existence" with having 'no
>>> existence' at all, but this is not what I am saying. From a static
>>> (conventional) point-of-view, individuals conceptualize patterns into
>>> distinct entities. Patterns appear to exist in their own right, but if
>>> they did exist in their own right, THEN, they would be permanent and
>>> could never change or evolve. Patterns exist dependent on innumerable
>>> causes and conditions (patterns); patterns exist dependent on parts
>>> (patterns); patterns exist in dependence upon a conceptual designation
>>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:15 PM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>>>> If patterns have no independent existence, how is it that you
>>>> recognize them as distinct patterns? What you are really saying is
>>>> that there is only one pattern, that spreads about, co-operating with
>>>> itself. What makes you want to divide them up into many? Are you the
>>>> pattern separator? Why would you even want to do that?
>>>> According to your metaphysics, Static Quality cannot exist in stable
>>>> patterns since such patterns do not exist; we only have a monistic
>>>> pattern. Where would you say your plurality of patterns comes from if
>>>> they have no inherent existence? With your inclusion of all into one
>>>> pattern, are you speaking of God?
>>>> On 2/29/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>>>> "Nonrelativizably"? It is you who are exhibiting stuckness in some
>>>>> post-modern philosophical, muddled thinking (words and concepts), or
>>>>> is it
>>>>> Plato's distortion. Either way it is stuckness. You are stuck in your
>>>>> representation of relativity. Let go of that. That understanding is
>>>>> static. Move on.
>>>>> Quality may be compared to quantum physics's nonlocality. Statics
>>>>> exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no
>>>>> independent existence.
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html >
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.