Hi Mark, > [Mark] > My point was that you have to have faith that Pirsig has an answer.
[Dave] Well he has "AN" answer, the question is, is it a "BETTER" answer? Early on I thought it was, the more I got into the details, (particularly as I saw the wide range ,often IMHO bizarre, interpretations by others here) I became less and less enthused. But the killer for me are Pirsig's own applications of his system. The "free will" thread that is current running is a classic example. I think that Dan's presentation and interpretation of Pirsig's ideas on this issue is pretty fair and accurate. Look at this recent exchange: >> 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. Now just for a minute imagine that Ron's "choice" was not single malt scotch but to murder his wife. To imagine Ron standing in front of a judge explaining that because "murder" is a static pattern of value his action was "determined", not of his own "free will", and thus there is no reason to punish him. To me this is just plain laughable, but to imagine a world where this is a reasonable argument and the judge agrees is beyond scary. That is the world of MoQ. If this was the only case it might be excusable but several others are just as egregious. Dave 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
