>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."
Steve said:
I can't make much of his [Pirsig's] claim "To the extent that you perceive
dynamic quality, you make your own life." To what extent _do_ we perceive
dynamic quality? 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 [Pirsig] 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:
It shouldn't be surprising that the MOQ construes freedom differently from
"most philosophers of the past". The MOQ deliberately breaks from that history,
particularly by rejecting SOM (Modern philosophy) and taking the sides with the
Sophists against Plato and Aristotle (Ancient philosophy). The classic dilemma
of determinism - how can one be free in a universe governed by causal laws? -
doesn't come up because the MOQ does not subscribe to the idea that the
universe is governed by causal laws. I mean, the question of freedom is still
about you and your life but it is asked and answered from within an entirely
different universe, so to speak. That universe, which includes you, is
conceived as static and Dynamic Quality in process, not a law-like machine.
As a result, freedom is going to be more like a skill or a sensitivity, not a
capacity in the sense of a Kantian "faculty". The capacity or ability to
perceive DQ is not going to be associated with any particular sense organ nor
is it located in any particular part of the brain. Pirsig says it's not just
something you're born with, although you ARE born with it. It's something that
can be developed, tuned up and educated. Both books are all about getting so
attuned. You know, in ZAMM we get the artful mechanic and the lessons in seeing
freshly, while in Lila we get the interpersonal relations as well as political
and cultural relations. They're about how to deal with "the system", how to
beat it, how not to be a slave or a mule but a free person instead, as Pirsig
puts it.
"Perception" is the point of the hot stove example. Pirsig is trying to
demystify DQ by painting such an ordinary scenario. He says DQ is not some
crypto-religious metaphysical abstraction but an empirical reality. He says the
mystics will be the first to get off the stove precisely because they tend to
get less confused with a lot of abstract ideas and instead has become more
attuned to empirical reality as such. Likewise, it isn't enough for the artful
mechanic to understand the underlying rational forms. He also needs to care,
has to have a feel for the materials, for the tools and he even has to identify
himself with the task, if not the machine. We're talking about a sensitivity to
aesthetics even in the realm of grease monkeys and kitchen equipment and yet it
applies to philosophy and to the living of your life just as well. Following DQ
is about coming down from the world of abstractions and principles and
returning to the immediate flux of life, to direct everyday exp
erience. As Martha Nussbaum puts it, "fine attention and good deliberation
require a highly complex, nuanced perception of, and emotional response to, the
concrete features of one's own context, including particular persons and
relationships." (Granger, 11) If, as Pirsig puts it, SOM means drinking life
through a straw or chasing a mechanical rabbit, then the MOQ means guzzling
life from a wide-mouthed quart-sized mason jar and it means following DQ in
your own way. It means following your own dharma instead of simply obeying the
rules and keeping your nose clean.
".., the overall pragmatic orientation of ZMM and Lila effectively embodies
Dewy's conviction that the proper aim of philosophy is not the creation of a
logical system of thought, but rather the enhancement of the quality of life
and experience through conscientious cultural or values criticism. Briefly, for
now, this critical practice entails looking at how different values come into
being and trying to discern which prized goods are truly valuable when we
consider the conditions and consequences of pursuing them. Pirsig clearly takes
such practice very seriously. His deliberate evasion of Western text-bound
tradition of philosophizing act as a kind of emancipatory gesture, freeing his
attentions from the conventional obligation to interpret and apply the works of
his predecessors according to canonical precepts. Simply put, it gives his the
space and opportunity to engage in the always-challenging work of open and
honest inquiry - what Emerson praisefully calls 'Man Thinkin
g.' ..Immaculately reasoned arguments and grand systems mean little if they
have nothing to contribute to the art of a life well lived." (Granger, 16)
Or, as I like to say, Yes, the unexamined life is not worth living BUT the
un-lived life isn't worth examining either.
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
