Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dan -- > > > Thanks for responding so graciously to what to you must seem a radical > epistemology.
Hi Ham You're welcome, and thank you too. >Ham: > Normally I let these controversies run their natural course--and this has > been a long one. But Individual freedom is of vital importance to me, not > (as Andre insinuates) because I'm an American, but because it is a > fundamental principle of humanistic philosophy and the central theme of > Essentialism. Your statement that "the confusion is thinking that having a > choice is freedom" is particularly perplexing in that it appears to > contradict the definition of freedom: "the absence of constraint in choice > or action." It suggests that having free choice is a deception played on us > by an overruling cosmic force called Quality. Dan: The term freedom has several meanings. To avoid confusion, I think the best definition to use in this circumstance is... 3. the power to determine action without restraint. [Dictionary.com] ...although your definition works just as well. Most all our actions are constrained by social and intellectual static quality patterns. As long as our behaviour is ruled by static quality patterns, we are without choice. When we follow Dynamic Quality, which is undefined, we are free. > >>Dan: >> Good of you to weigh in, thank you. In the framework of the MOQ, >> Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience, and freedom is >> synonymous with Dynamic Quality. So free will is neither insignificant >> or "illusional." When we follow experience (Dynamic Quality) we are >> free. And to the extent our behaviour is controlled by static quality, >> we are without choice. >> >> No one is forced to experience Dynamic reality.. However, everyone >> is forced to follow static quality patterns that make up our every day >> conventional reality. >Ham: > I try to think of static quality as the "experiential patterns" that > constitute physical objects and (in MoQ terms) human beingness as well. Dan: Within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological static quality patterns are seen as physical. Social and intellectual static quality patterns arer seen as non-physical. Human beings are seen as a collection of all four levels of static quality plus being capable of responding to undefined Dynamic Quality. Ham: It > is these relational patterns that we are free to choose and manipulate in > accordance with our individual value priorities. What we are NOT free to > alter are the dynamics of nature as codified by the laws of physics, which I > would have expected to represent the Dynamic Quality of Pirsig's thesis. Dan: Laws of physics are seen as intellectual static quality patterns within the framework of the MOQ. Dynamic Quality and the dynamic forces of nature are not to be confused. >Ham: > Your explanation seems to reverse my analysis. You say we are free to > follow DQ because "it is synonymous with experience," but are "forced to > follow SQ patterns that make up conventional [experiential?] reality." Dan: Yes, I suppose I am reversing your analysis. Within the framework of the MOQ, experience is seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality, which is both undefined/infinitely definable. Static quality patterns constrain conventional reality. I don't know if "forced" is a term I agree with... "compelled" seems to work better. Ham: I > don't know what to make of this interpretation. For if DQ is the primary > reality that accounts for the design and evolution of the > universe--including the emergence of man--how can it be open to man's > choices? And if man is also forced to follow static patterns, then there is > no freedom. Dan: Intellectual static quality patterns are responsible for the design and evolution of the universe as we know it to be. Within the framework of the MOQ, ideas come before matter. On the free will vs determinism controversy, the MOQ is quite clear in stating that when our behaviour is controlled by static quality patterns, it is without choice. It doesn't say we are forced into following static quality patterns, however. We are free to follow Dynamic Quality. >Dan: >> As long as human beings follow static quality patterns, they are >> without choice. Cultural patterns prescribe very definite sets of >> behaviour that if a person steps outside of, they will either be >> imprisoned or eventually grow ill and die. >Ham: > We shall all eventually grow ill and die according to unchangeable laws of > nature. But while we are alive and well, we can choose to become > carpenters, writers or painters; vote for liberal or conservative > politicians; indulge in gourmet meals or fast foods; and support or oppose > cultural norms, even if we are ostracized or imprisoned for doing so. Dan: I think it is better to say we are free to choose to become carpenters, writers, etc, to the extent that our behaviour is controlled by preconditions set up by those static quality patterns. In other words, as much as I would like it, I cannot choose to be a starting pitcher for the Chicago Cubs. For one thing, I am 56 years old. And for another, I didn't have the physical talent for that particular choice even 30 years ago. My choices are constrained by static quality patterns that dictate certain preconditions that don't always exist. > > Ham: >> >> In order for man to be a free agent, he is created as a 'being-aware', >> an individuated entity that stands apart from the Creator or Source. >> He can be neither indigenous to it nor the essence of its value. But so >> that he may realize this value without the bias of absolute knowledge, >> the psychic core of man's being is value-sensibility. In existential >> terms, >> cognizant awareness and free choice are possible only by virtue of >> the fact that man is an autonomous entity. > > Dan: >> >> I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Dynamic Quality in >> MOQ terms is what you are naming cognizant awareness. However, >> it is neither a Creator or Source, yet it is both source and goal of >> experience. Human beings do not stand apart from Dynamic Quality. >Ham: > Cognizant awareness is not the source but is proprietary to the autonomous > self. It is not collective or transferable to other individuals. That > doesn't sound to me like Dynamic Quality, Dan. Dan: Thank you for the correction. I obviously misread what you're saying. Ham: But if DQ is both the source > and goal of experience, is experience not the possession of Quality rather > than the conscious subject? If so, how is human experience not > predetermined? Dan: Yes, experience is not us as human beings possessing Dynamic Quality. It is us as human beings being possessed by "it." But that doesn't translate into Dynamic Quality as being some kind of external agent. Experience isn't predetermined until it has become intellectualized into static quality patterns. > > Ham: >> >> [U]nless man is an independent creature, capable of realizing >> value for himself and free to act in accordance with his choices, >> human life has no purpose or meaning other than to complete >> the evolutionary process of an insentient universe. > > Dan: >> >> Yes, part of the problem I've had with your posts over the years >> is your not caring what Robert Pirsig (or the MOQ) says. This is >> after all a forum dedicated to his work. Be that as it may though, >> within the framework of the MOQ, human beings are not independent >> of the universe. You seem to be claiming they are, which puts you >> at drastic odds with the MOQ and anything I can say to the contrary. >> Still, I feel it is good to at least recognize these differences, for what >> it >> is worth. >Ham: > Thanks for your latitude, Dan, and I apologize for departing from the > conventional interpretation. But I do not claim that human beings are > independent of the universe. I'm saying that individuals are free agents in > a universe largely of their own making, that the ground of this universe is > Value (dfferentiated by nothingness), and that the uncreated source of man > and his universe is Essence. Dan: Thank you once again for the correction. >Ham: > It is not Quality but man himself whose sensibility determines what goodness > is, and it is by his measure that morality and justice are established as > cultural norms. For morality and behavior to be dictated by an external > source would deprive man of his freedom and the capacity to act in > accordance with his values. Dan: I don't think we are as far apart as it might seem. Quality and morality are seen as the "groundstuff" of reality within the framework of the MOQ, not as an external source. Static quality patterns do not deprive human beings of freedom... rather they constrain and compell us to act in accordance with social and intellectual rules of behaviour, without which there would be no civilization. Thank you for your time, 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
