Condensed version of what dmb said to David H:
I don't think that is a valid criticism because all distinctions are static
quality cultural distinctions. ...I'm just using a political notion to
illustrate the relations between freedom and order in general and particularly
with respect to intellectual quality. ... 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 degeneracy. ...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. ..See, when I claimed that "real freedom or positive freedom
entails mastery and proficiency," I just paraphrasing the quote.
David H replied:
...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.
dmb says:
Well, I'm not quite sure if I follow your thinking here but... Pirsig himself
talks in terms of "negative" freedom and opposes it to Dynamic freedom. AND the
quote about the freedom of the Zen monks makes this same distinction, even
though he uses different terms. Unlike Westerners, these monks are taught "that
you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other
contrary static patterns." "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". That is where "Dynamic freedom is found,"
Pirsig says. This is the difference between negative and positive freedom.
Negative freedom is "sometimes called bad karma chasing it's tail," because it
fights static pattens with contrary static patterns whereas positive freedom is
an achievement, a power or capacity that comes through mastery of static
patterns. We're not really talking about politics here, but
the distinction is useful there too. This, Pirsig says, is "what neither the
socialists NOR the capitalist ever got figured out".
"When they call it freedom, that's not right. "Freedom" doesn't mean anything.
Freedom's just an escape from something negative. The real reason it's so
hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean Dynamic Quality."
Although we can apply this distinction to the freedom of Zen monks and to
political freedom, I want to examine its application to intellectual values to
the way we think and do philosophy. I'm thinking about Pirsig's root expansion
of rationality, his pragmatic theory of truth and Marsha's distortions of them.
Against her anti-intellectualism and relativism, I'm saying that Pirsig is
saying that static intellectual quality is a crucial ingredient in the recipe
for real freedom, for Dynamic freedom.
Like the pragmatic theory of truth, where truth is provisional, "scientific
truth always contained an overwhelming difference from theological truth: it is
provisional," Pirsig says, and "it's science's unique organization for the
handling of the Dynamic that gives it its superiority".
"That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously.
If you don't have the static patterns of scientific knowledge to build upon
you're back with the cave man. But if you don't have the freedom to change
those patterns you're blocked from any further growth."
Pirsig applies this basic principle in every example that I can think of, in
every case that I can think of, but the idea is fairly simple. Positive freedom
can occur when you "create a stable static situation where Dynamic Quality can
flourish". That why we need those static intellectual patterns know as truths.
They are necessary to create a stable situation where DQ can flourish. This is
why Marsha's anti-intellectualism is so tragic. It would destroy the conditions
that make evolutionary advances possible. That's why it is not simply incorrect
but also morally degenerate. And, I'd add quite unnecessarily, that I strongly
suspect that she has some degenerate (i.e. egotistical) reasons for adopting
this nihilistic view. She certainly uses her weird relativism to evade
responsibility and I simply suspect that she likes it for that reason.
"It seems as though a society [or a philosophy discussion group] that is
intolerant of all forms of degeneracy shuts off its own Dynamic growth and
becomes static. But a society that tolerate all forms of degeneracy
degenerates. Either direction can be dangerous."
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
