Hello everyone On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:53 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Dan: Right. Chaos as disorder might be seen as the antithesis of intellect. But that is not freedom in the Dynamic sense of of what is better. Chaos isn't better, it is worse. Rather than moving toward Quality it seems to be a falling away. > >>> 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. Dan: This seems right. > >>> 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. Dan: What I mean to say is something like the caste system in India, China, and Japan, etc., for example. How would one go about mastering those patterns and getting unstuck? > >> Or perhaps it is just a different set of patterns >> we must watch out for, like fame. > > Not sure what you mean here? Dan: See above. It would appear the caste system came about as a form of celebrity worship. The same thing happens here in the West when a person becomes so famous no one will stand up to them and tell them no. Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, the list goes on and on. But in the East these patterns were and are even more insidious in how they keep whole groups of people down without any hope of making a better life for themselves. > >> 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? Dan: Of course there is value in the quote from Lila but I think it needs to be viewed in the proper context. I cannot see a peasant going to work at Fox Conn with the ideal of mastering the buffing out of face plates for the new iPhones. They go to work there with the ideal of making enough money to perhaps better their life and maybe send money home for the betterment of their family. They do not work long hard hours hoping to achieve freedom. That is probably the last thing on their mind. > >>> 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? Dan: I would say human rights are so basic they go beyond being cultural and can be seen as universal. But yes, all one need to is look at the startling number of creationists in the US to see how a major religion influences what a culture values. In the same way, religion in the East can have a detrimental affect on culture. > >>>>> 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: That is what an analogy is so I have no problem either. :) > >>>>>> 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: So the quote from Lila is like (analogous to) a hypothesis contrary to fact? Does that mean it is without value? And if you feel this is so, why did you bring the quote into the discussion. Anyway, I will assume for the moment that I understand the MOQ to some degree. So when I talk about freedom of speech and freedom of religion I am talking about freedom from social patterns of quality that seek to muffle the intellect. And of course there is value there. But Dynamic freedom is a movement away from all patterns. > >> 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. Dan: Sure, there's that. On the other hand, when one gets hung up on the 'can I do better in explaining' the work is never done. I get to the point where I just know I have done all I can do. What is interesting about the ebook revolution is an author can easily go in and change the manuscript at a later point in time whereas a print book is much more difficult to update and change. > Thanks Dan, You are welcome. Thank you too. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
