Hi Ham, Steve qu0tes Pirsig:
>> "When they call it freedom, that's not right. "Freedom" doesn't mean >> anything. Freedom's just an escape from something negative. The real >> reason it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean >> Dynamic >> Quality." Ham: >Well, Steve, if Freedom doesn't mean anything, then "the social-intellectual >moral code which describes how societies have come to agree that the >intellectual level should be free from social control", as you defined it >for Platt, doesn't mean anything either. Steve: In the above I was referring to freedom as the absence of social control. I think that in Pirsig's quote, when he says that freedom doesn't mean anything, he is saying that freedom usually refers to the absence of something else. It is usually just a negation, but it is also used as a positive goal. When it is used in this way it refers to DQ. Ham: >You went on to say: "These >'rights' have evolved and continue to evolve as societies come to better >understand how they can facilitate evolution towards DQ." That's a >convoluted way to describe Freedom, but are "rights" not the exercise of >freedom in society? Steve: Rights are usually used to say how individuals are free from government control. Ham: >I don't know about RMP, but when I talk about Freedom I'm definitely not >referring to some esthetic realm called Dynamic Quality. By Freedom I mean >the autonomy of man whereby an individual can choose his/her values and act >in accordance with his/her sensibility. Steve: This is absurd. People don't choose their values. Could you will yourself to prefer chocolate if you actually prefer vanilla? Such freedom of preference or freedom of belief doesn't exist. Ham: >I believe that man's freedom derives from his capacity to discriminate >between values. Such values may be esthetic, moral, or intellectual. Steve: In the MOQ intellectual value is aesthetic and moral. Ham: >My >argument for this is that the essence of man is value-sensibility. Because >his wants and aspirations extend beyond the biological need to survive, he >is free to choose independently of instinct, laws, or physical coercion. >Given the opportunity to fully exercise his innate freedom, man is the >choicemaker of his universe. Steve: Again, such freedom doesn't exist. You can't choose to believe something that you aren't already convinced of. IN the MOQ I think the choice you are talkinging about is aesthetic preference. Regards, Steve 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
