Hello everyone On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: The Will seems to be something like the Spirit, so I can see why it is absent. It doesn't exist except as an idea. > > > 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. Dan: Then we haven't been paying attention. >Steve: > 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: Freedom from constraint is a negative goal? How so? As to yearning for quality, we all do that anyway. That's why RMP used quality as a basis for his metaphysics. Right? > > > > 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? Dan: "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent." Dan comments: It goes all the way. Everything is composed of static quality patterns. >Steve: > (2) How do we come to know the difference (if we ever do) between > "being controlled by" static patterns and "following" DQ? Dan: I just told you how. So did Khoo: "Just as the Buddha did, and as Pirsig realised it to, it is equally dangerous to take either extreme of having "No Self" and "Self" while we still inhabit our illusory impermanent selves. The former leads to unproductive nihilism and the kind of ascetism that the the pre-enlightened Buddha pursued. Forcing the end of self too soon, before one is ready for an "unconditioned" existence, leads to absurd results. On the other hand, pursuing the latter leads to self-aggrandisement and its preservation at all costs, the kind that we see placed in the world today by the Western Church of Reason. "What seems to be missing from this discussion, is the role of moderation in considering either extreme. The text refers to this as taking the middle path. Buddhas aside, to those of us who still inhabit selves, need to refer to the self, not the permanent cartesian, essential notion of it, but if you will, the aggregated "complex ecology of static patterns" that free of conditioning, can and still choose among the choices that is before it. "But to the extent that this "complex ecology" is "unconditioned", liberated in a way from the static patterns binding it into a certain trajectory, it is free to make its choices, including the choice of not making a choice. In the conventional sense, "freedom" or "free will" is the ability and the capacity to make choices. In the unconventional sense, dynamically speaking, it also involves ending this charade all tgether. "The task of removing all pre-conditions for existence is an ardous one, not properly understood nor explicated by many. Even the Buddha had to live out his natural life, exhausting each day these pre-conditions before he was truly and completely liberated, which is why I think your putting it out as a "complex ecology" helps to further the understanding of the MOQ in this discussion." Dan comments: If you don't like my answer, read his. We are basically saying the same thing. And again, it is our behavior that is controlled. Not us. We are free to pursue Dynamic Quality. Note carefully how Khoo uses "unconditioned" in contradistinction to the notion of preconditioned existence. Therein lies the answer to your question, me thinks. >Steve: > (3) Why are static patterns thought of as "controlling" our behavior > while DQ is thought of as being "followed"? Dan: We can never catch Dynamic Quality. We can only follow it. But our behavior is caught up in static quality patterns to the extent we know of nothing else. Thanks, 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
