Hi Dan,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Steven Peterson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"In the MOQ,
>> this dilemma doesn't come up." Instead, in the MOQ the issue of
>> freedom is about static versus dynamic Quality. To the extent we
>> follow static patterns we are not free, to the extent we are acting in
>> response to DQ, we are free.
>>
>> But to exactly what extent IS that? What is interesting to me is that
>> what we seem to have here is a whole new MOQ Platypus after the SOM
>> Platypi have been dissolved. Because Pirsig says we cannot distinguish
>> degeneracy from DQ until long after the fact we just can't say to what
>> extent we are free.
>
Dan:
> You're phrasing your rephrasing of RMP wrongly, in my opinion. He is
> not saying "we" are free. He is saying to the extent we follow Dynamic
> Quality, our behavior is free... our actions and our reactions to
> inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual stimuli. "We" are not
> free to the extent our behavior is controlled by those static quality
> patterns.

Steve:
I wasn't trying to create any controversy on that point. The exact
quote I was referencing is “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.” dmb takes this to mean that WE have "free
will" to the extent we follow DQ and are determined to the extent that
WE are controlled by static patterns. I'm not sure that I understand
the distinction you are making, but I do notice in RMPs reformulation
of the issue the notion of "we" as well as "the will" is conspicuously
absent. dmb sees these notions as implied. I see them as deliberately
left out.


Dan:
> We know to what extent our behavior is controlled. If we did not, I
> doubt we'd be talking right now. We follow the law. We do what is
> expected. And we do this to seek approval from others. Yet, we yearn
> for freedom even if we don't really understand what it is that we're
> yearning for.

Steve:
We do know that our behavior is controlled to some extent, but I would
say that we have no idea how far that goes.

As for "yearning for freedom," I think Pirsig substitutes the positive
goal of "yearning for quality" for the negative goal of freedom from
constraint.



Dan:
> What you seem to be asking is: how can we be free without sinking into
> some sort of degeneracy? The short answer is: we can't. But there is a
> longer answer that says: by seeking an understanding of the
> biological, social, and intellectual ramifications of our actions and
> reactions to stimuli, we are better able to chart a course away from
> all patterns and avoid for example the biological degeneracy that did
> in the hippies and the social degeneracy that devoured communism and
> the intellectual degeneracy that destroyed Nietzsche.
>
> Huh?

Steve:
What I was trying to do is move the conversation forward. Instead of
arguing whether or not Pirsig's statement is a middle ground between
free will and determinism [dmb] or better viewed as a rejection of
both horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma in
favor of a whole new reformulation of the question of freedom [steve],
we might move forward toward discussing Pirsig's reformulation itself.

Pirsig says, “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.” So our behavior is free to some extent and not free to some
extent. Ok, but...

(1) ...to exactly what extent IS that? Isn't THAT the question we need
to know about freedom? Everyone knows that our behaviors are
constrained to some extent, but how far does that go?

(2) How do we come to know the difference (if we ever do) between
"being controlled by" static patterns and "following" DQ?

(3) Why are static patterns thought of as "controlling" our behavior
while DQ is thought of as being "followed"?

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

Reply via email to