On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > HI dmb, all, > > >> 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? > > Steve: > Sure, one can _say_ it, but is it true, and what does it even mean to say so? > > I noticed that quote too when I read the NY Times article, and I was > struck by the fact that he doesn't talk about choice but rather > perception. > > dmb: > 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? > > > Steve: > Well now you slipped free _will_ into this picture where Pirsig talked > behavior and perception rather than _will_ being free. > > I can't make much of his claim "To the extent that you perceive > dynamic quality, you make your own life." To what extent _do_ we > perceive dynamic quality?
Dan: To the extent that we put static patterns to sleep by learning to ignore them. Meditation is one possible path. >How could we behave so as to perceive more > or less of it? By doing what we love versus doing what we are told. >If dynamic quality is the leading edge of experience, > how does anyone _not_ perceive it? By covering "it" up. By intellectualizing "it" away. >Why does he see perception rather > than will as the key to human freedom where most philosophers of the > past have been concerned with a particular sort of the capacity to > choose? Perception is Dynamic. Will is seen as an illusion in the MOQ. > Unfortunately, rather than shed light one the matter, for me > this quote just muddles things further. You think too much. 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
