Hello everyone On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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. > > Steve: > It also exists as a subjective experience. We have the sense of > willing some of our acts, but when we think of the will as an > experience, it just doesn't make sense to ask "is this experience > free?"
Dan: Experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. So yes, I agree with you, which is why I've been hammering on the notion that it is our behavior that is without choice when it is controlled by static quality patterns and not us. Does that make sense? > >>> >>> 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? > > Steve: > I was referring to this quote from the 1984 afterword of ZAMM: > > "The hippies had in mind something that they wanted, and were calling > it “freedom,” but in the final analysis “freedom” is a purely negative > goal. It just says something is bad. ...This book offers another, more > serious alternative to material success. It’s not so much an > alternative as an expansion of the meaning of “success” to something > larger than just getting a good job and staying out of trouble. And > also something larger than mere freedom. It gives a positive goal to > work toward that does not confine. That is the main reason for the > book’s success, I think. The whole culture happened to be looking for > exactly what this book has to offer. That is the sense in which it is > a culture-bearer." Dan: Ah, yes. Thank you for the explanation. As I see it, this correlates well with what I said about the degeneracy of biological quality. The hippies wished to Dynamically advance social quality patterns but in retrospect, they only reverted to biological patterns. In the MOQ, this is seen as immoral, or negative quality. Thank you, 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
