Hi dmb,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Steve: I've never heard anyone say otherwise. dmb: 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. Steve: I agree, of course. dmb quotes: > 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. Steve: If you read more carefully, you will see that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said. I did not say, we are not free without qualification. I said TO THE EXTENT THAT we identify with static patterns we are not free and to the extent we identify with DQ we are free. This is what Pirsig says as well. I am doing my best to help you understand the MOQ, but if you don't read carefully you will continue to struggle to get a grip on what Pirsig is saying. Best, Steve 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
