Hello everyone On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Dan: Here is the exact quote from LILA: "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." Dan comments: Your choice to drink nothing but single malt whiskey is controlled by static patterns of quality. First, you have to intellectually know what single malt whiskey is. Socially, you have to have access to it, somewhere to buy it. Biologically, you have to enjoy the taste/buzz it gives. Your "choice" to drink it or not is completely bound up in static patterns of quality. That is not the freedom RMP is talking about in following Dynamic Quality. >Ron: > The illusion is intellectual.The intellectual response to dynamic quality Dan: Yes, the illusion of choice is intellectual. > >>> >>>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. Dan: Oh no. Our behaviour is controlled by static patterns of quality at all four levels. Think about it... we are composed of molecules that adhere together, which we call our body. Biologically, we are bound up in our perception of the universe by our senses, our human senses. Socially, we are ensnared within the culture we inhabit. And intellectually, we construct a world from our experience. > >> 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 Dan: No again. It may seem that that is what I am saying but to the extent we follow Dynamic Quality we are free. Parameters are all static quality patterns. What effects the changes is our response to Dynamic Quality. >Ron: > 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? Dan: Well, I guess it is kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus, right? In a way, this statement might indeed be construed as bleak. But would you rather fool yourself into believing you have a choice when in fact you do not? It is better to go through life with eyes open, in my opinion. That is the good. And that is where Quality figures in as well. >Ron: > You are in effect saying that Quality is an illusion. Dan: No. I am saying Quality may not be what you think it is. > > > >>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: That is somthing we can't say. > >> >> >> >>> 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. Dan: In order to embrace new ideas we have to effectly kill the old ones. >Ron: > 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? Dan: It is like telling the fat person to stay out of the frig, remember? He is not rejecting intellectual quality so much as RMP is saying there's something better. >Ron: > there seems to be a contradiction arising in the consistency of your > interpretation and what > Pirsig wrote about. Dan: I think you would rather not see what he is saying... that you are comfortable with your static quality choices. And that's okay. But that is not what the MOQ is telling us. 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
