Hi All
On 2 Nov 99, at 12:04, B. Skutvik wrote:
> > A Subject/Object Metaphysics makes us look for the reason for
> > everything in one of its two realms--for instance the culture vs.
> > nature debate. As the Metaphysics of Quality rejects the
> > subject/object division as fundamental, where does it look for
> > (and find) an explanation?
On 2 Nov 99, at 23:33, David Buchanan wrote:
> It seems the nature vs nurture question is a great example,
> seemly unsolvable in normal science, the MOQ simply says that
> each aspect is the expression of different levels of values, and that
> ultimately it was all aquired by experience, even the stuff you're
> born with. The whole problem dissolves. We look to the values
> involved, rather than causes. Then its just a matter of applying the
> levels and their codes.
The problem as stated above - nature vs. nurture - is a mistaken
point of view as only the most extreme evolutionary psychologist
(nature) or social scientist (nurture) is likely to take the view that it is
an EITHER/OR choice. This is one of the few areas where a
BOTH/AND view is currently prevalent. Both sides recognise that
Biology (nature) and Society (nurture) contribute to how a person
behaves.
The Gene Machine model (Evolutionary Psychology) places a greater
emphasis on the effect that genes have on a persons behaviour and
personality but still accepts that social pressures and culture play a
significant part.
Advocates of the Standard Social Science Model believe that there
are biological pressures which are responsible for certain aspects of
a persons character but that it is mainly cultural pressures that
ultimately dominate and determine behaviour.
The main argument at the moment is the degree to which each
position contributes and neither position is, in general, seen as
mutually exclusive of the other nor is the Nature/Nurture position
exhaustive. The Meme Machine (Susan Blackmore) position is a
compatibilist view which possesses elements of both positions.
A problem with more relevance than Nature/Nurture, within a
Subject/Object paradigm, is that of Free Will/Determinism. It is also
this area which has more serious consequences in terms of moral
behaviour, punishment etc. and whch to a great extent defines the
MoQ as without Free Will, or the freedom to choose, can there be
moral behaviour. Additionaly, the Nature/Nurture debate is
underpinned by the consequences of the Free Will/Determinism
position - and it's pretty grim.
Here's the (SOM) background:
Position 1
All events have a cause. This is the deterministic position which
says that if all current events can be seen as being caused by prior
events then all future events can be determined by reference to either
current events or those events which can be traced to current or past
events - THE CAUSAL CHAIN.
Position 2
NOT all events have a cause. The non-deterministic position is often
(although not exclusively) associated with Quantum Mechanics
whereby some events - but not all events - are uncaused and other
events are caused.
Positions 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive and exhaustive - nothing
else is left - this a classic EITHER/OR SOM position and creates an
enormous dilemma because in neither position is there room for Free
Will or any other form of "free" choice.
Free Will means that we are free to decide upon an action and then
perform that action if we so choose (given certain constraints) thus
causing occurrence of an event through through individual choice.
If the world is determined (Position 1) then ALL of our actions have
prior causes, so we have no control over events. All our choices,
decisions and actions can be traced to prior events in the causal
chain BEFORE WE WERE BORN so there is no such thing as
choice and thus no Free Will.
If the world is non-determined (Position 2) then we still have no
control over events as those events which are uncaused are not
caused by us (we have not caused an event through choice) and
those events which are caused are caused by prior events (again we
have not caused an event through choice). Thus we do not possess
Free Will as we are still unable to exercise choice.
To answer the second part of Bo's question:
"where does it (SOM) look for (and find) an explanation?"
the answer is that it cannot - it has defined Free Will out of
existence!! We may not be determined but we certainly have no Free
Will.
In Lila, Pirsig says:
"In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. 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 undefineable, it is free"
(Lila - End of Chapter 12)
which may leave us in the same position as the above SOM dilemma
with regard to choice.
Since DQ is, undefineable then how does one follow DQ, or more
appropriately how does one know and thus deduce choice and free
will?
Horse
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST