Hello everyone On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said: > 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 replied: > Sure, one can _say_ it, but is it true, and what does it even mean to say so? > > dmb says: > You don't know what it means and you want to know if it's true? Do you > realize that this is the MOQ's reformulation of the free will/determinism > dilemma, the reformulation about which you have been making claims for > months. And now you're telling me that you don't know what it means? Shall I > consider this a confession? Are you now admitting that you don't understand > what you've talking about for all this time? > > > Steve continued: > 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 says: > > Yea, in terms of the free will debate you've been participating in, that > quote is the most relevant one because it recapitulates the reformulation we > find in Lila. It makes the same point that we find in Lila. I would have > thought that putting them side by side made that parallel very obvious. > 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 continues: > These are probably the two pieces of textual evidence that are most directly > relevant to the long debate about the MOQ's reformulation of free will and > determinism. Like I said, since Pirsig can reject SOM's self and STILL say > that one's behavior is free to some extent, then we can too. These Pirsig > quotes prove that the question of free will can be answered without > committing yourself to objectionable metaphysical assumptions. They show that > the question of freedom is still a question about you and your life.
Dan: The key is to disrupt being the victim of fate... to stop clinging to static patterns. I'm reminded of once being asked by an old acquaintance...if I could do anything, what would it be? I answered without thinking... to write. It was an epiphany. That didn't mean though that I suddenly quit my day job and started writing around the clock. Rather, I sought out the Dynamic within the static of my life letting go of patterns that I was clinging to and that were holding me in place. I thought about David and how he described discovering that philosophy was his thing that he'd rather be doing than anything else and how we seem to be moving in the same direction although on separate paths. > > > Steve replied: > Well now you slipped free _will_ into this picture where Pirsig talked > behavior and perception rather than _will_ being free. > > > dmb says: > Slipped free will into this picture? Not at all. Pirsig's claim is the MOQ's > reformulation of free will and determinism. That is the context of Pirsig's > remarks. And the term "will" does not have to be used as some kind of > metaphysical claim. We are simply taking about the status of "one's > behavior", your behavior, your aims, goals, wants, choices and your ability > to act on them. As I've come to expect, you're defying the evidence and > completely missing the point. > > > Steve confessed: > 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? > > > dmb says: > Well, you have issued a lot of strong opinions about this claim. If you can't > make much of it and you don't know what it means, don't you think it's a bit > foolish to be pontificating upon it for several months? It truly seems that > you've been faking your way through this topic the whole time. If that's the > case, it's no wonder I'm so often frustrated! > > > Dan addressed Steve's confession: > > > To the extent that we put static patterns to sleep by learning to ignore > them. Meditation is one possible path. > > > dmb says: > I wouldn't put it that way, Dan. The NY Times quote has Pirsig putting a lot > of emphasis on the static side as a key ingredient. He says, "I have been > moved increasingly to appreciate the merits of the static," where he says he > finds, "tremendous dynamic value". Pirsig says, "The key is to see the > dynamic within the static." This is consistent with the central analogy in > ZAMM, with the artful mechanic. He can't afford to "ignore" static patterns, > not if he wants to get his bike out of the garage and out onto the road. Like > I said, Pirsig is telling that the key is to see the dynamic within the > static. To ignore the static is to misunderstand what freedom is, I think. > The artful mechanic doesn't reject the static patterns. He puts them to use. > This is also consistent with his treatment of DQ in Lila, wherein DQ is the > force behind all evolution as well as "the value-force that CHOOSES an > elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one", and "an integral part of > science. It is > the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." (Lila, 366) Dan: Yes, of course. But not all static patterns are of the same high value. When we cling to destructive patterns holding us in place, we grow old without ever discovering who we could be. When we seek out the Dynamic within the static we learn to let go of harmful patterns and instead embrace those patterns of higher (better) quality. You didn't become a philosopher just by wanting to... you worked at it. And I will not become a writer just by wanting it. I work at it as well. The thing about writing is... everyone thinks because they can read that they can automatically write. It is like thinking because you can listen to music that you can compose a song. And maybe you can. But for it to be good writing or good philosophy or good music a person has to conquer the static to the point they see the Dynamic Quality lurking there. > > > Steve asked: > How could we behave so as to perceive more or less of it? If dynamic quality > is the leading edge of experience, how does anyone _not_ perceive it? 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? Unfortunately, rather than shed light one the matter, > for me this quote just muddles things further. > > > dmb says: > I think Pirsig's comments only clarify and illuminate the very issue we've > been debating for months and I think it is your questions that just muddle > things. Pirsig says that one's behavior is free to the extent that we can > perceive and follow DQ. Your question construes that backwards, as if we > could behave our way to free behavior. This perception and following of DQ is > not opposed to freedom of the will. It is his description of freedom within > the MOQ. He is only talking about one's capacity to decide upon or choose a > course of action. There is no good reason to keep loading one's "will" with > all sorts of objectionable metaphysical claims. He's just talking about > people, about your freedom and your life. This baggage is not only > unnecessary and unwanted, it's a wrench in the gears of your thinking. It's > got you jammed up quite badly. Dan: Yes, I agree with David here. Which is why I observed that sometimes we think too much. We don't see what is being said for thinking about what our answer is going to be... 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
