Ron to Andre:
But I still fail to see how Dans point of how static patterns having no choice,
and no freedom as it directly applies to the traditional philosophical problem
of freewill vs. determinism, that MoQ renders moot,forms the general elementary
framework of how static patterns of quality are understood within THE MoQ.
If you can provide some insight I'd be appreciative.
Andre:
Hi Ron, I'll do my best but must first say that I also, as Dan, don't quite
understand why you do not grasp the MOQ perspective on this issue of freewill
vs
determinism.
Ron:
I understand what he is saying within the context of freewill vs. determinism
but not how this overlays onto
the overarching framework of MoQ. The arguement is rendered a moot point it
dissolves it, therefore there
must be a larger contextual meaning which renders it thus. Therefore that
contextual meaning as it relates
to freewill vs. determinism is rendered moot and disolves. Again How does a
dissolved point become
the overall general meaning of Moq?
Andre:
Let's start slowly: you say you fail to see how following static patterns means
'having no choice' in the context of f vs d in the MOQ renders it 'moot'... .
Are you with me thus far? Following static patterns simply means following what
has gone thus far. There are a zillion static patterns to follow and
...YES...you have a choice about those...following whichever ones you would
like. Our culture freely offers these opportunities as wonderful expressions
of... . But is this an expression of freewill? Is this an expression of freedom?
Ron:
It is an expression of choice that is for sure, and you already stated above
that we may follow static choices
as we like, is there a better term than freedom?
Andre:
I think that, within the context of the MOQ Pirsig renders these choices, as
expressing freedom or freewill to be rather empty...meaningless. He debunks the
SOM inspired freedom to be meaningless... empty.
Ron:
But we are discussing freedom within the context of MoQ. NoT SOM. If there is
no
freedom then the possibilty
of a MoQ point of view is impossibe right?
Andre:
The choices you make, and the reasoning by which and through which you make
these choices, in other words; the givens and the relations between those gives
are already static. As soon as a choice is made, the choice is not dynamic but
static. It is a static choice. I would say that most of our lives are spent
making static choices. Go to the supermarket, walk the street, plan a vacation
you have not undertaken before, apply for a job... and invariably the thing
comes down to evoking prior,well established patterns to follow. Of course you
have a choice about which (well established patterns) you choose (and my point
to Ham was that this is, in the Western world understood as free choice and
freewill). But Pirsig gets away from this. He suggests that this is NOT
freewill
nor free choice in the true sense in which the MOQ means it.
Ron:
Please supply quotes and please do not ask me to read Lila, I did the work of
coming up with my quotes
that support what I say, I would appreciate others doing the same.
Second, "He suggests that this is NOT freewill nor free choice in the true
sense
in which the MOQ means it."
But we are discussing what freedom and choice in the true MoQ sense means. That
is what started
the whole discussion.
Andre:
The MOQ is not a social value based apology for this type of stuff. The MOQ is
a
mystical philosophy. It wants to move us away from this intellectual stuff.
What
it says is, if you want true freedom, true free choice, kill all intellectual
patterns whilst sustaining ( which in the Dutch translation of LILA is a little
different as it implies a 'putting up with' a 'suffering') biological and
social
patterns).
All clinging to intellectual stuff impedes the realization of 'true' knowledge,
unitive knowledge, DQ and I suggest that any allusion to 'freewill, 'freedom'
are fetters and attempts of the ego, of selfishness, to assert itself over and
over again. Pirsig, and Dan have been repeating this again and again:
To the extent that one's behaviour is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice'.
Choice as an expression of freedom i.e Dynamic choice. No...it is static
choice... i.e. based on static patterns (and relations) of value). It feeds the
Giant, your ego and the illusion.
Ron:
But what is outside of static patterns and relations is chaos and
meaninglessness. It can't be
anything else.
Andre:
But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's
behaviour is free'. (LILA, p 160)
Pirsig in the AHP tapes:'... the act of an artist,say a non- representational
artist...he has an easel in front of him, he has paint in front of him, he has
a
brush, he puts it in and he is staring at the blank canvas...where does he put
it? How is he going to know? Are there any rules? There are no rules! He is
going to operate on, if he is a real artist, he's going to operate on pure
Value. He'd say: 'There' ... and it will be a non mediated, non intellectual
This is critical: non-mediated, non-intellectual...this is following DQ. This
is
following freedom and if you want to follow this course... your 'freewill' and
(static) 'freedom' will be determined by Quality.
Ron:
But your freewill and static freedom is Always determined by Quality. Because
it
creates the world we live in.
Our intellectual reasons for following dynamic Quality are......intellectual
reasons! see the paradox?
Andre:
I do hope I have been able to clarify some things which I believe the MOQ
perspective is. Of course I may be wrong and will welcome your and Dan's
comments.
Ron:
Then how does this view square with the expansion of rationality Andre?
How does it relate to providing greater explanitory power? if this indeed is
THE
MoQ
point of view it does not seem to account for both these assertions.
I leave you with this Quote:
"In the past Phasdrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
alone
and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these
static
patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To
succumb to
them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But
now he
was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't
exist
on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality
alone
apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos."
It weakens his own case Andre, it really does. It is clinging to
meaninglessness.
Thnx
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
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
