Hi Dan, >> Well, not quite.. I'm saying that if we are only doing something else, >> there clearly is freedom from a particular pattern. What there isn't >> though, is lasting DQ. Perhaps if I re-emphasise some things here.. >> >> The first thing is that when Pirsig claims that 'freedom doesn't mean >> anything' I think that he is merely pointing to the fact that it isn't what >> 'light's people's eyes up' when they talk about it. To support this in the >> next sentence he writes… >> >> "The real reason it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they >> mean Dynamic Quality." >> >> So Pirsig is not claiming that people in the West don't experience Freedom. >> Or that literally freedom isn't anything. He is saying that in the West we >> don't always experience the DQ that *can* go with freedom. In other words >> he is pointing out that freedom and DQ are not the same. > > Dan: > Interesting. I get the opposite impression. While I am sure Robert > Pirsig doesn't mean to pigeon-hole Dynamic Quality as freedom reading > Lila I get the impression they are analogous. Here are but two quotes: > > "Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world > in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of > order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can > survive without the other." > > "What the Dynamic force had to invent in order to move up the > molecular level and stay there was a carbon molecule that would > preserve its limited Dynamic freedom from inorganic laws and at the > same time resist deterioration back to simple compounds of carbon > again." > > Dan comments: > In the first quote he calls Dynamic Quality the Quality of freedom. He > calls static quality the quality of order. I think it is important to > note the capitalized Q in the first instance vs the small q in the > second. In the second quote, he seems to impose limits on Dynamic > freedom within the inorganic and biological levels but he still calls > it freedom. > > So if we throw out the analogy between Dynamic Quality and freedom as > you seem to suggest, aren't we altering a fundamental precept of the > MOQ?
Well I think it is all a matter of how far you draw the analogy. While, as I've said, freedom could result in chaos which is not DQ, that which we generally talk about when our eyes light up when we talk of freedom is Dynamic Quality. >> Freedom is the state of free from some static pattern. This could also be >> chaos. But it's not DQ. >> >> People in the West do get free and experience DQ though. They are able to >> achieve freedom from some such a static low quality pattern. There are laws >> which create this freedom. Freedom of speech comes to mind whereby you can >> generally speak your mind irrespective of a lower social level.. > > Dan: > Right. But it is pointed out in Lila that these are intellectual > freedoms. It would appear this is an instant when they talk about > freedom it isn't really freedom, as you say. Each level has its > limited Dynamic freedom. In the biological level, it is evolution. In > the social level, it is celebrity force. In the intellectual level, it > is freedom of speech and trial by jury. All these freedoms are limited > but they are Dynamic advances over the previous level. Indeed. So when we talk of this type of freedom we are always talking, on reflection, about the amount of change and variation which is allowed on each level. The more variation, the more free something is. This change is not Dynamic Quality but it is a result of Dynamic Quality. Often times when people talk about freedom they are speaking to that undefined betterness which creates each of these levels and not the results of those freedoms. >> But this isn't freedom or DQ forever Amen. This is just freedom until you >> pick something else to get stuck on and which one will eventually need to be >> free of again. >> >> But then in the East they don't deal with particulars. They talk of being >> freedom from all patterns and suffering.. In this way DQ can be achieved >> through mastery of static patterns by putting them to sleep. > > Dan: > Perhaps. But again, the danger is getting stuck on the social rituals. > It would appear this is more prevalent in the East than in the West, > wouldn't you agree? Yes I would agree. But this is my point. It's because they are not interested in particulars in the East that from the Western perspective of freedom - they get 'stuck' on particular patterns. But it is a matter of emphasis. Someone in the East will be more likely to be open to freeing themselves from those patterns by mastery, rather than doing something else and getting 'unstuck' from a pattern in that way. > Or perhaps it is just a different set of patterns > we must watch out for, like fame. Not sure what you mean here? > Dan: > While during the last few decades this was certainly true things are > changing very rapidly in China. Living conditions are still negligible > compared to more developed countries but as China evolves into a > world-class power all that is bound to change. What one must take into > consideration is the poverty endured by hundreds of millions of its > citizens. A comparison might be made between them and the people > coming to America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The first > generation of immigrants worked long hard hours without complaint. > That began to change when their children grew up. They wanted more. Yes. I don't disagree with any of this. But I still maintain that there is value in Pirsig's words from Lila where he points to this difference in the way each culture reflects Dynamic Quality. To me there just appears to be an inherent part of the culture of the East which means they are predisposed to hard work. And I think that inherent part is the way each culture views freedom.. If your culture is more interested in finding freedom through mastery rather than freedom through doing something else then your culture is going to be perceived as harder working no? >> Ahh, right. Here we are. I think people in the West do have freedom. They >> do find freedom from particular low quality patterns. That is a definition >> of freedom. Freedom is the state of being free from some such a static >> quality. If that is the definition then both types of freedom are >> legitimate. The West is concerned on being free from particular patterns, >> while the East is concerned with being free from all patterns. > > Dan: > Well, perhaps Buddhist monks and other ascetics may concern themselves > with being free from all patterns, but I gather for the most part > people in the East desire the same things as people in the West. We > all are concerned with basic freedoms like the right to vote, the > right to live and work where one chooses, and the right to better > ourselves... what we call basic human rights. While I agree that both cultures value the freedom of being free from the suffering which some patterns bring. And there is indeed value in being free to live and work where one chooses. A countries major religion still heavily reflects what a culture values. These values permeate throughout an entire culture. Sure you agree with this no? >>>> But I don't think Dynamic Quality is a direct analogy for freedom. They >>>> are similar but not the same as the quote you provided above demonstrates. >>> >>> Dan: >>> I would say an analogy is never direct. The similarity is what makes >>> it an analogy, is it not? >> >> Well this is where we get into the imprecision of romantic language. I like >> the precision of saying Dynamic Quality is not freedom. Because as we are >> discussing.. it isn't. > > Dan: > We are using the term Dynamic Quality in an intellectual capacity > here. If we cannot use analogy and other methods to delineate this > from that then perhaps it is better that we do not speak of it at all. > Wouldn't Robert Pirsig have considered this too when he wrote Lila? If > you run a search for freedom in Lila you will find many instances > where he compares Dynamic Quality and freedom. It is best to say > Dynamic Quality is not this and not that so yes, it is not freedom yet > freedom and Dynamic Quality seem analogous in the way he describes the > MOQ. As I said, the definition of an analogy is a similarity between > this and that as pertaining to intellectual terms, not a direct > relationship. Right. I've since improved my understanding and looked at a definition of the term analogy… "A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification" I suppose freedom is the way western culture reflects Dynamic Quality so if we say an analogy is a similarity rather than a strongly direct relationship I have no troubles with that.. >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Dynamic Quality freedom as a movement away from all static patterns >>>>> doesn't seem to end with any static result. It is only when we confuse >>>>> freedom with a movement away from negativity that it ends with a >>>>> static result. >>>> >>>> When we confuse Freedom as a movement away from a particular negativity >>>> then that will end with a static result. It's this picking and choosing >>>> type of mind which is more likely to end with a static result. >>> >>> Dan: >>> But it isn't really freedom. It is confused as freedom. So there are >>> not two kinds of freedom. There is that which is confused as freedom >>> and there is freedom. >> >> Well here is the important distinction between DQ and freedom which I've >> described above. There is that which is confused as harmonious DQ and there >> is harmonious DQ. But both freedoms experience DQ. > > Dan: > I would say 99% of people who talk about freedom have never heard of > Dynamic Quality. What they are talking about isn't really freedom in > the sense Dynamic Quality is free of all patterns. But if they > understood the MOQ, then that is what they would mean. This is tricky Dan because they do not know - so it is like a hypothesis contrary to fact. Furthermore I disagree with the prediction. I think there is value in being free from a particular pattern by being able to do something else. Not free of all patterns, but free of a pattern which is causing particular suffering. It is this particular type of freedom which is represented in movements such as the freedom of speech movement… If there was not such impetus to free ourselves from a particular negative static quality suffering then we would never see a need to free ourselves from tyranny. > Dan: > Thank you. It is a strange thing to share something as intimate as a > novel one has spent many months (or years in some cases) working on... > I find myself almost embarrassed by it. The meager scraps I have > copied and pasted here gave me much pause as to whether or not to even > share them. I leaned towards not but my finger descended upon the send > button before I could stop it. > > The few people I have shared a bit of it with tell me it is good but I > cannot help but consider they are being kind in their assessment. By > some of their remarks I don't know as they understand what I saying, > which on the one hand might be good but on the other hand I have to > ask myself, can I do better in the explaining? I see. I suppose this is a good question to ask yourself.. Often times internal conflict like this can be healthy and produce a higher quality work. >> To be honest, this is great writing. I was really liking it until the very >> last sentence which hit me like a brick wall. I don't like the last >> sentence for some reason. Maybe it's just me but I don't like it. It is >> like saying what DQ is.. After thinking about it, I think when you say it >> you have an egoless mind but the world 'I' has so many connotations for so >> many people which are strung up with the opposite of an egoless mind that >> the sentence could be very easily confused... > > Dan: > Ah. I see now that I neglected to add the last sentence: > > This is called the way of the mystery. > > The working title of the book is The Mystery: Zen Stories. And yes, I > can see your point; it is a valid one. By coming back to the mystery > over and over throughout the book it is my intention to show that > which we easily overlook. Yes the mystery can be likened to Dynamic > Quality or the Absolute or the Way or any number of names all naming > that which has no name. I guess that's why I prefer the mystery, > though as they say what is a rose by any other name… . >> Re-reading what you wrote here's the sentence: >> >> "these 'things' are Dynamic Quality until the moment we define them into >> static existence" >> >> My response is still similar to what I wrote originally. Even though you >> have put the word 'things' in talking marks, I still maintain that it is a >> very slippery slope. Dynamic Quality isn't anything. To start claiming >> there are 'things' in Dynamic Quality or whatever is just slippery slope to >> me.. > > Dan: > I understand your concerns. So perhaps it is better simply to say > nothing at all… In some instances. But here we are talking, so let's keep going I suppose :-) >> But, back to the philosophy - this is you knowing beforehand, eventually, >> what is going to be degenerate. Eventually, you make an intellectual rule >> which says - person xyz is degenerate, so avoid them. So to put it another >> way - it's is not just a matter of always experiencing things directly; both >> Wissenshaft and Kenntnis are valuable. > > Dan: > I don't know beforehand, however. It is only afterwards that I come to > see the futility of my actions. I recall during the beginning of our > discussions that I became a bit disgruntled when your answers seemed > (to me) to be less than they could have been. As I said, I tend to > give people the benefit of the doubt and in this instance I am pleased > that I did. > > Many times, however, it becomes clear over time that the contributor > only seeks to belittle my words by assuming an arrogant stance, or by > luring me into a discussion only to insult me and poke fun at me. I > suppose they make themselves feel superior by attacking others. > > Of course I cannot know this beforehand. But in time I come to see the > futility of engaging in any discussion with certain people. That isn't > to say I dislike them or consider what they have to say of low value. > I just know that any overture on my part will be met in the same silly > way, so why bother? Yes that is a wise way of living. Give the benefit of the doubt, then if that fails, make an intellectual conclusion and move on. Thanks Dan, -David. 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
