Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:05 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>Dan: >> I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom. >> Conventionally, that is so. But we are not talking conventionally >> here. We are using the framework of the MOQ. To have a choice is >> follow intellectual patterns of value and when we are dealing with >> static quality, we are without choice. >> >>John: > Quite a corner you've got yourself painted into there Dan. One is only free > to the extent that one follows DQ, but since all experience is immediately > translated into sq, the only time one is truly free is in that tiny slice of > time which is the pet of existence to Radical Empiricism. Personally, I'd > like a bit more freedom than that. You need to reformulate, I think.
Dan: It is not my formulation, John. It is the MOQ as described by Robert Pirsig. And if I am going to be painted in a philosophical corner, I can't think of anyone I'd rather be in it with. And you are right. The only time we are truly free is that tiny slice of time before we succumb to static quality urges and define our freedom away. That is what zazen is all about. Cultivating that tiny slice, growing it bit by bit over the years, stretching it, until the world stops. So there you go. > > > >> Dan: >> >> Yes that seems right. I dislike the term "spiritual leading" but I >> understand what you're saying. And if you understand, then you can see >> where I am coming from. >> >>John: > I believe I do. > > > >> >John: >> > Freedom IS Quality and Quality is Freedom of choice. You can't have >> > betterness if there is no choice. This seems so obvious to me that if I >> was >> > a half-ass philosopher I'd put together some sort of ontological proof, >> but >> > I ain't, so I won't. >> >> Dan: >> If that is so, there is no choice but what is better. > > > John: > > "Better" means an option between it and something worse. Option implies a > choice. Therefore betterness implies choice, logically inevitable choice. > There is always a choice when there is better. There is the choice of > worse. People say "that's no choice at all" but it actually is a choice and > sometimes you don't know whether the choice you make is better, or worse, > until some time has passed. In fact, this passage of time to determine > betterness, is the heart of pragmatism, right? Dan: Dynamic Quality is the drive behind "betterness." And as such, it is undefinable and infinitely defined simultaenously. That is why it takes time, you see. That's why it is hard to tell the revolutionaries from the degenerates. > > Dan: > > >> I think the term >> Quality might be misleading. If you're using it as a synonym for >> Dynamic Quality, then to the extent we follow "it" we are free. > > >John: > Ok so far. "Following it" implies making it your goal, having it as your > ultimate value. I agree, only when DQ is your ultimate value, is one truly > free. Dan: Good. That's a start. Dynamic Quality isn't a goal, though, nor is there a gate that leads to "it." > > Dan: > > >> But >> they way you are using the term it seems you are defining choice, in >> which case you are following static quality. > > > > John: > > I define Choice by DQ, and DQ by Choice. Neither is definable on its own. > This is what is meant by "co-dependent arising" Dan: You can't define Dynamic Quality. Choice is static quality. Static quality is dependent arising. > > Dan: > > And though it may seem as >> if there is a choice, there isn't. It is predetermined by the static >> choices you make. >> >>John: > By the same argument, Dan, I could say you mean that there is no Quality > either - that it is also predetermined by the environmental inputs and thus > completely static. The only way Quality gets in the door, is if you have > free choice able to open the lock. Dan: You don't have free choice to open the lock. It is predetermined by perception. > >John: > Quality is a given, so also then, is free choice. Dan: Again, the first division of the MOQ is Dynamic Quality (freedom) and static quality (determined). I think your use of Quality is confusing. > > >> >> Dan: >> Quality can be defined... we define it all the time. And in the >> defining we lose the freedom of Dynamic Quality. When we think there >> is a choice, there isn't. We've effectively ruled out freedom by >> defining the choices we have. >> >> You say, wait... I have a choice to care or not to care. But that >> doesn't translate into freedom. You've set up parameters, >> preconditions upon which to act. By following Dynamic Quality there >> are no preconditions. We are free. >> > > John: > > NO preconditions can only occur in a condition of NO patterns. If there > are no patterns, then there is no choice and there is no Quality. Dan: Not so. Dynamic Quality is not this, not that. In other words, it is without patterning. That is freedom. When we follow static quality, we are without choice. We may think we are making a choice but within the framework of the MOQ, that is an illusion. >John: > It seems to me that you equate being free with being in a chaotic state of > indeterminancy. Hmmpphh. Dan: Dynamic Quality isn't structured yet it isn't chaotic either. John: What's the pragmatic value in that? Dan: Dynamic Quality isn't pragmatic. Only static quality is pragmatic. John: It > certainly doesn't make any sense to me. I see it differently. Dan: Yes, I know. John: The > existence of Quality implies a pre-condition. There is a value, therefore > there is a condition upon which to decide, a map-point by which to orient. Dan: The existence of static quality impies pre-conditions. Not Dynamic Quality, which is always new and comes as a surprise. > > > >> Dan: >> Freedom isn't impossible. It just can't be defined in a static quality >> way. Once we start intellectualizing, freedom is lost. That is what I >> see the MOQ telling us. > > > > John: Well I certainly agree with that. I think I've mentioned before that > by co-equating freedom and quality, I agree fundamentally with the MoQ > insight that such is ultimately indefinable. Dan: And infinitely definable as well... > > > > > Dan: > > >> Take the hot stove example... > > > John: > > Oh, please, not again. Can't you people come up with any new analogistic > cliches? I don't think authority was meant to be construed thus. Dan: This is important though. I know I keep coming back to it; I do so on account of how it illustrates Dynamic Quality as freedom in a simple yet profound way. I am not appealing to authority and it may seem a cliche to you since you think you have it all figured out. But I am telling you, you don't. And it is just me here, John. Not sure where the "you people" come in... John: I think > you should figure out what the meaning of the parable is, then hash out new > metaphoric parallels, for goodness sake. But never mind that, I think this > point about pre-intellectual is so inane, only a professor would find it > profound to hop off a stove, ok? There's all kinds of neural network that > makes us humans jump, and it's not all centered in our cortex or whatevers. Dan: See? I keep telling you that the jump off the stove comes before thought, before the neural networking. Dynamic Quality as pre-intellectual is the point. It is not an inane point when you get it. It only seems so when you don't. John: > Even our feet got brains enough to know that. Dan: It is not feet we're talking about, John... do you have brains in your rump too? > > > >Dan: >> there is no >> intellectual choice made getting off the stove. That comes later, >> along with the oaths and pain. And an intellectually oriented person >> will have the hardest time understanding that. A more mystically >> oriented person just acts. >> >> >John: > Sorry, but you don't have to be all that mystically oriented neither, to get > off a hot stove. All you gotta have is a really hot stove. Dan: And a big round ass sitting on it would help too, I presume. But again, you're failing to see the point. >John: > I have the hardest time understanding how anybody could have a hard time > understanding this... no matter how intellectual. Dan: Yes, me too. It is too much intellectualization that's the problem, in my opinion, as I've already said. > >John: > But hey, thanks as always Dan, I enjoy our little chats. Dan: Yes, me too. Thank you, Dan 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
