Hello Dan, you had stated to John
>>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.
Ron:
Static Quality is nothing but choice and having choice is freedom.
To have intellectual choice is to follow intellectual patterns of value
which effect social and biological patterns of value which effect inorganic
patterns of value.
I make the intellectual choice to drink nothing but single malt scotch wiskey
this choice effects more choices, social outcast as a drunk, biological
dependence and the breakdown of healthy tissue,chemicals change their bonds.
Our emotions are a complicated set of molecular values and what are we
if we are not our emotions, our values. The illusion of these processes is that
they
are static.
The illusion is intellectual.The intellectual response to dynamic quality
>>
>>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.
Ron:
This part has me confused about how Pirsigs Ideas about the expansion of reason
fits together
with this interpretation. The only time we are truly free is when one over
comes
intellectual
stuckness. To say that true freedom is freedom from static patterns of value is
only speaking
about intellectual patterns to be sure.
And I'm not quite sure this squares with the idea of the expansion of reason.
> 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.
Ron:
You seem to be saying that true freedom is to not exist at all. Dan, You
don't not seem to think the parameters set can change at any moment, at any
second they could change their values, their choices at any level
I mean this statement is really bleak Dan really anti-intellectual too. How
does
the good
fit into this supposition? where does Quality figure in?
You are in effect saying that Quality 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.
Ron:
How can it surprise you when we have no choice how we percieve things.
How can something that may not be defined create the new in the unchangeable?
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
Ron:
Freedom is freedom from intellectual stuckness, it comes from defining who we
are
in terms of a particular set of values and clinging to them. True freedom is
the
freedom
to embrace new ideas.
Once we stop intellectualizing freedom is lost.
Would someone who advocated a rejection of intellectual pattern of values write
a paper
about quality in freshman writing? would he write two books explaining how we
can
Improve the quality of our lives by improving the way we think?
there seems to be a contradiction arising in the consistency of your
interpretation and what
Pirsig wrote about.
>
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
