>From the NY Times interview:
"To the extent that you perceive dynamic quality, you make your own life," Mr.
Pirsig suggested, "and to the extent you cling to static quality, you are the
victim of fate. But dynamic quality is disruptive and I have been moved
increasingly to appreciate the merits of the static. I'm becoming less radical,
coming round to old institutions and finding within them tremendous dynamic
value. The key is to see the dynamic within the static."
>From Lila:
"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 says:
If Pirsig can reject the Cartesian self or SOM's self and STILL say that one's
behavior is free to some extent, then why can't we? I mean, don't the Pirsig
quotes prove that the question of free will can be answered without committing
yourself to the metaphysical framework we've already rejected? The question of
freedom is still a question about you and your life, don't you think?
The key, he says, is to see the dynamic within the static. Freedom operates
within the static. To denigrate the static as an illusion or as a prison from
which we want to escape is to misunderstand what freedom is, I think.
Take care of a highly precise machine, for example, and you're free to go
someone or to fly across the landscape for no particular reason. Freedom takes
a lot of disciple, you know? I mean, being controlled by or clinging to static
patterns is very different from mastering static patterns. The artful mechanic
doesn't reject the static patterns as traps or illusions. He puts them to use.
Zoom, zoom. San Francisco here I come.
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
