David H said:
There is value in this distinction dmb. However, as you'll agree they are both
a static quality cultural distinction.
dmb says:
I don't think that is a valid criticism because all distinctions are static
quality cultural distinctions. More specifically, the distinction is being
offered as a way to think about the balance between the Dynamic quality of
freedom and the static quality of order in the MOQ. I'm just using a political
notion to illustrate the relations between freedom and order in general and
particularly with respect to intellectual quality.
Here's the quote which I used as evidence for the notion that we cannot do
without static patterns, that static patterns are part of the recipe for
freedom.
"'Zen monks' daily life is nothing but on ritual after another. Hour after
hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static
patterns to discover the unwritten Dharma, they want him to get those patterns
perfect. The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not
free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static
patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free
yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you MASTER
them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature.
You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in
the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the
Dynamic freedom is found."
David H said:
This quote is about mastery not about the dangers of 'killing' static patterns.
In fact, I read it that this quote is about actually killing them.. Killing
doesn't mean devaluing though. It means 'getting so used to them you
completely forget them and they're gone'. This is what Pirsig means where he
writes the following: ... While sustaining biological and social patterns Kill
all intellectual patterns. Kill them completely And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served." Now how do we 'kill' intellectual patterns? ..
we kill them by "mastering them with such proficiency that they become an
unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget
them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of
static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found."
dmb says:
Yes, I definitely had that "kill all intellectual patterns" quote in mind,
David. I'm saying that the quote about the freedom of the Zen monks tells us
HOW to understand the quote about killing static patterns. you kill them
through mastery and proficiency so that they become part of your nature, like
the way we drive a car or ride a bike. You just have it down so well that it
requires no deliberate thought. I wanted to make this point because some people
(Marsha) interpret it to mean that freedom from static patterns can be achieved
through sheer apathy. ("I'm not interested in the truth," she says.) I think
that's just about the opposite of what Pirsig is actually saying. In fact,
"care" is one of the crucial ingredients in becoming an artful mechanic or an
artful thinker or an artful anything. It's that Marshan interpretation that I'm
pushing back against when I say that rejecting static patterns as a prison, as
something that ought to be "killed", is embracing chaos and d
egeneracy.
So, I'm saying that "killing static quality intellectual patterns is valuable"
IF you understand that Pirsig means making them part of your nature through
mastery and NOT dismissing them as unreal or unimportant. "They don't tell him
to shatter those static patterns to discover the unwritten Dharma, they want
him to get those patterns perfect. ...you don't free yourself from static
patterns by fighting them... You free yourself from static patterns by putting
them to sleep. That is you master them with such proficiency, that they become
an unconscious part of your nature. THERE at the center of the most monotonous
boredom of static ritualistic patterns, THE DYNAMIC FREEDOM IS FOUND." (LILA
385)
See, when I claimed that "real freedom or positive freedom entails mastery and
proficiency," I just paraphrasing the quote. And I mention the artful
motorcycle mechanic, the central metaphor of ZAMM, because Pirisg says the same
thing in more concrete terms, wherein the artful mechanic has to know the tools
and the machine. That kind of mastery and proficiency is what allow a creative
solution. It's paradoxical - as opposed to being a mere contradiction, but
Dynamic freedom is found right there in the center of all those static
patterns. This is even more evidence in the case of the Poincare. His Dynamic
insight was a result of being hip deep in math problems, the result being stuck
in a giant pile of very elaborate and very rigid static patterns, and then BAM!
The idea that static pattern are the enemy is just a really bad idea.
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
