Steven Peterson said on Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM:
"No, really. The MOQ literally does not posit the existence of the reified
concept of a chooser, a Cartesian self, a watcher that stands behind the senses
and all valuation, the soul. The MOQ does not posit an extra-added ingredient
above and beyond the patterns of value and the possibility for patterns to
change that are collectively referred to as "I" about which it could possibly
make any sense to ask, "do I have free will?" This question gets dissolved in
the MOQ to the extent that it needs to be unasked. This question presupposes
that there is such a thing as "I" that has important ontological status that
transcends those patterns of value to which it refers. ...
dmb says:
I think that we can reject SOM and the Cartesian self and still ask legitimate
questions about freedom and constraint. There is no law that says the issue HAS
to be framed around those metaphysical assumptions and in fact Pirsig's
reformulation does exactly that. The issue is tackled without those assumptions
and he does not let that difference get in the way of asserting human freedom.
"A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence
over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of
evolution than social patterns. ...And beyond that is an even more compelling
reason: societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets
of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral argument
against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic capability -
its capability for change and evolution." (Lila 160-161)
"The increase in versatility is directed toward Dynamic Quality. The increase
in power to control hostile forces is directed toward static quality. Without
Dynamic Quality the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism
cannot last. Both are needed." (Lila 147)
In traditional, substance-centered metaphysics, life isn't evolving toward
anything. Life's just an extension of the properties of atoms, nothing more. It
has to be that because atoms and varying forms of energy are all there is, But
in the MOQ, what is evolving isn't patterns of atoms. What's evolving is static
pattens of value, and while that doesn't change the data of evolution it
completely up-ends the interpretation that can be given to evolution." (Lila,
139)
"Life can't exist on DQ alone. It has no staying power. To cling to DQ alone
apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos. ...Static quality patterns
are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress
Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary
stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although DQ,
the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of
static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor
Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." (Lila, 121)
Steve, by contrast, said: ... We can identify with our current patterns of
preferences and the extent to which we do so we are not free. We are a slave to
our preferences. Rather we ARE our preferences. ... Cultivating practices such
as meditation that help us be open to change, which is the death and rebirth of
small self as old patterns evolve into new patterns, is striving to be more
free from the bondage of current value patterns that may be improved. If we
succeed in improving them, we still ought not identify with the new and
improved small self but rather with improvement itself. That is, if we want to
be more free."
dmb says:
Well if you ever wonder where I got the impression that you're asserting some
kind of value determinism, this would be one of many places to point. Your
characterization of static quality as bondage, slavery and unfreedom is
incompatible with countless statements made by Pirsig, a sampling of which is
presently before you. Where you call them a form of bondage, Pirsig calls them
a necessary stabilizing force. Where you say we are slaves to these patterns,
Pirsig says they are the quality of order that preserves our world, not to
mention our integrity as organisms. Where you say we can't choose our
preferences, Pirsig says that it takes a living being to perceive and adjust to
DQ. For these reasons, and more, I think you're very much at odds with Pirsig
on this particular issue and at odds with the MOQ in general.
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
