Hi dmb,
> 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.
I disagree with this. Yes all distinctions can be determined to be culturally
based, however there are distinctions which are purely intellectual. The first
of which comes to mind would be the distinctions within mathematics or logic.
It's true that mathematics and logic require a culture to be thought of, but
the distinctions themselves are not cultural, they are intellectual.
> 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."
Can't disagree with any of that :-)
> 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.
Yes, I appreciate that. When Marsha says that she doesn't value truth - that
is indeed showing great disrespect to intellectual value. We both agree that
truth is a description for high quality patterns. If Marsha does not value
truth or would like to de-emphasise it and(to be precise) replace it with
'hypothetical' then she doesn't value high quality intellectual patterns...
> 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.
I see what you were claiming however I'm not convinced there is this direct
relationship between negative and positive freedom and what we both appear to
acknowledge is the two types of freedom Pirsig espouses. Perhaps we can talk
about this some more... Would you agree that there are two different types of
freedom here? On the one hand, there are freedoms which are built into the
static quality of a culture. On the other hand Pirsig also talks about, not
the limits of or lack of limits to cultural freedoms, but being free from all
static quality patterns. I have been relating these two different types of
freedom to Dan based on their historical context. The freedom of the West
which has traditionally been focused on the static quality cultural patterns of
freedom and the freedom of the East which has been interested in being free
from all patterns, not just cultural ones.
> 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.
I couldn't agree more :-) . Here you seem to suggest that the other type of
freedom is called Dynamic freedom. I suppose I'd be happy with such a
description. We have normal ordinary everyday, culturally based freedom, and
'Dynamic freedom'. Sounds good to me.
Thanks dmb,
-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
