Hi Carl, On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > > >[Mark prev] >> Hi John, >> Yes, I agree. The rhetorical value is in sharing it in order to bring >> about mutual agreement so that something can be shared as one. There is >> great meaning in that, such as sharing a funny part of a movie. Otherwise >> the appreciation is quite isolating. > > If I can jump in here: Isn't the very sharing of your personal experience a > 'sort of' attempt to subvert someone else's will? To explain, have you > noticed that when someone shares a funny part of a movie, they affect the > attitude or speech pattern of the comic? To explain, by trying to recreate > their own experience, they are attempting to cause a similar reaction in the > person they're relating it to. From what I understand of ZAMM, Persig came > to the realization that truth and beauty, (and I extrapolate humor) were not > absolute, but rather an event. That event would be dynamic, as it could > only happen in that time, in that place. If you saw the movie again, that > scene may still be funny, but it won't be funny in the same way you saw it > the first time. Maybe my point is that the event itself IS isolating, in > that it occurs within the viewer or particiapant, since there is no way that > two people will react in exactly the same manner. There can be mutual > agreement that the scene was funny, but you can never be sure that it was > funny to the same degree or in the exact same way.
Mark: Yes, I agree, sharing gives the illusion of sharing. The purpose of rhetoric is to convince or subvert someone else's will. Humor is one of the best ways to appear to connect, there is nothing like laughing together. As I understand Pirsig, he brings in the concept of "Relationalism" (not to be confused with relativism). Each event relates to another. Each moment is unique, and each memory is unique everytime it arises within one. We are islands due to the inability to express our minds. Telepathy would somewhat solve this. Telepathy would be in the form of empathy or another emotion. No words would be required since words only arise after the feeling, if you will. As such, words are simply an elaborate binary form of communication that try to form a net with which to relate an awareness. Any net has more space than rope. Now I am not sure if reaction cannot be identical. I feel that thoughts co-arise together between individuals. Kind of like a yawn happening at the same time between individuals in a crowd. It is the way these thoughts are expressed that differs. While there are many different kinds of fear, for example, the feelings involved are pretty much all the same. The same can be said for joy, in my opinion. > >> Freedom is something I feel and seek like minded individuals. Those who >> believe in determinism do not interest me. > > This begs the question of what exactly is freedom. I say, "Mark" as a > dynamic expression of my current experience, with no previous experience or > expectation, and you reply, "What?" as the static expression of your > cultural mores. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I don't think it's > possible to be totally free of that cultural training, or we wouldn't be > able to communicate at all. Mark: The semantics of Freedom has gone around and around here. Freedom, for me, is a feeling that we probably all recognize so long as we do not analyze it. At its height it resemble weightlessness or floating in one of those isolation chambers. It signifies something beyond the physical attachment to all, and at its inception is Liberation. Such Freedom is short lived since we once again compartmentalize with wordy thoughts. However, experiences such as movie watching allows the individual to completely lose the self and participate freely. The same can be said for skiing down a black diamond slope, for me. It is this direct contact with something other than the daily routine that provides freedom to me. > > Carl > >> >> Mark >> >> On Aug 12, 2011, at 9:34 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> To reiterate, my posting was concerned with the rhetorical value of the >>> term >>> free, as applied to will and that what might be seen as a redundant term >>> in >>> SOMish vernacular, actually is meaningful when viewed through the lens of >>> MoQ levels. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve: >>>> To summarize my conclusions from all the talk since the spring about >>>> the relationship between free will and the MOQ, I would say that we >>>> ought to distinguish between a (I) metaphysical and a (II) >>>> conventional use of the term "free will." >>>> >>> >>> John: >>> >>> I think we are in basic agreement about the two differing ways of talking >>> about free will. However in a purely metaphysical sense, I see free will >>> as >>> fundamental and I don't think your explication gives that view much >>> credence. To my recollection, last spring, when as you say, all this >>> discussion started, I was concerned with a comment of Pirsig's in the >>> Coppleston Annotations which I thought denigrated free will and my point >>> was >>> to equate free will with Quality. But historical perspectives aside... >>> >>> Steve: >>> >>>> >>>> I. The traditional dilemma between free will and determinism where the >>>> debate is framed around the self as a metaphysical entity is replaced >>>> in the MOQ with Pirsig's notion of DQ as a sort of freedom (as >>>> expressed in Pirsig's "the extent to which one's behavior >>>> follows..."). In this sense, both of the following seem like >>>> reasonable conclusions to me... >>>> a.) The MOQ denies both horns of the traditional philosophical dilemma >>>> since it rejects the premise upon which that dilemma rests. >>>> b.) Alternatively, one could take Pirsig as accepting the free will >>>> horn while redefining what is meant by free will to the extent that it >>>> is no longer what what originally asked about in the traditional >>>> dilemma. In this new Pirsigian usage of the term as the capacity to >>>> respond to DQ, even rocks and trees and atoms can be said to have free >>>> will as Pirsig said in LC. Further, this capacity is not a matter of >>>> will as a deliberate choice since DQ is said to be primary while >>>> concepts are secondary. (See Pirsig's "hot stove" talk.) >>>> >>> >>> >>> John: >>> >>> Well as you should know by now, I have troubles with the hot stove >>> analogy. >>> It takes as its basic assumption that we all react the same to hot >>> stoves, >>> but I disagree vehemently to that assumption. Each of us carries a >>> unique >>> historical context to our experience, and no two reactions to ANY >>> phenomenon >>> are exactly alike. But leaving that aside for the moment, I would say >>> that >>> it's important when applying the idea of free will to rocks, trees and >>> atoms, to notice the distinct differences in degree of freedom of choice >>> available to the differing levels. In fact, I think this is the key to >>> understanding the levels themselves. It is increasing freedom of >>> response >>> that defines the boundaries of the levels. Life has more freedom >>> available >>> than non-life. Societies have more decisions and freedoms than >>> individual >>> cells and intellect stands at the paramount of freedom, having the >>> ability >>> to think and decide whatever it chooses, even as to the definitions of >>> the >>> concepts it employs. Or "plays with". >>> >>> Steve: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> II. In a non-metaphysical conventional usage of the term, free will >>>> can be taken to be the human capacity to deliberate over possible >>>> courses of actions and play out scenarios of possible futures to weigh >>>> the consequences of actions before acting rather than merely acting on >>>> biologically determined impulses or socially conditioned responses. >>>> Free will in this sense translates in the MOQ not as affirming the >>>> capacity to respond to DQ but as affirming the fact that human beings >>>> participate in intellectual patterns of value. (Such a conventional >>>> usage is not explicitly discussed by Pirsig.) >>>> >>>> >>> John: >>> >>> right! That's why we're doing it for him. But yes, when "free" is >>> coupled >>> with "will", I believe you have delineated the purely human activity of >>> intellectual analysis. Or artistic creation as well. I think art and >>> intellect are wedded in the 4th level, an important point I haven't been >>> able to convince anybody of yet. But overall, I think we are in >>> agreement >>> as to the idea that the rhetorical value of free will, is as a signifier >>> of >>> 4th level patterning. >>> >>> Is what I've been saying. >>> >>> Steve: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Also important here is the MOQ's flat rejection of determinism in both >>>> its metaphysical and conventional forms. The MOQ denies that >>>> intellectual patterns are mechanistically determined by inorganic and >>>> biological patterns. In other words, the MOQ denies greedy >>>> reductionism where intellectual patterns are thought to be (even in >>>> theory) exhaustively explainable in terms of inorganic patterns. (See >>>> the stuff in Lila about a novel stored as variations in voltages on a >>>> computer not being a property of the voltages for the best example of >>>> Pirsig's critique on reductionism.) >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks Steve. Right on. I see nothing to argue over anymore. But >>> I'm >>> sure something will arise. As some famous philosopher said somewhere, If >>> we >>> can't find good ole dialogical opposition then maybe we can create some. >>> >>> take care, >>> >>> John >>> 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 >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3832 - Release Date: 08/13/11 >> > > 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 > 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
