Hello everyone On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 the m > 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.
Dan: Sorry, Dave, but I ran a search for negative freedom in Lila and came up empty. He does talk about negative quality but it would seem a stretch to say it is the same as negative freedom. For instance: "There was a "something wrong-something wrong-something wrong" feeling like a buzzer in the back of his mind. It wasn't just his imagination. It was real. It was a primary perception of negative quality. First you sense the high or low quality, then you find reasons for it, not the other way around. Here he was, sensing it." Dan comments: Here he is saying we have primary perceptions of both high and low quality but we don't find reasons for it until after the experience. Here's another quote that seems to pertain to this: "Suffering is the negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process. All these battles between patterns of evolution go on within suffering individuals like Lila. And Lila's battle is everybody's battle, you know?" Dan comments: Note how he juxtapositions the negative face of Quality as a driving force behind Dynamic evolution. We cannot have one without the other. dmb: > 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". Dan: Well, this is one reason why I insisted on the analogy of freedom and Dynamic Quality during the earlier discussions with David H. Sorry again to disagree, but Pirsig doesn't say there is a difference between negative and positive freedom. This is your paraphrasing and I don't see as I agree with it. In the MOQ, negative quality is seen as suffering, not negative freedom. That is why it is important to see how freedom and Dynamic Quality hold together even though we cannot say exactly what Dynamic Quality is. Freedom points to it the same way static quality points to suffering, or stagnation... static quality gone too far, if you will. dmb: > > "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. Dan: Hmmm. That is a bit of a stretch as well, especially since Robert Pirsig unequivocally states thought will not bring us closer to reality. It takes us farther away. Don't take this as anti-intellectualism, for I agree that the MOQ is an expansion of rationality, but still, we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. Remember, metaphysics is a menu, not the food. >dmb: > 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." Dan: I basically agree with you here but if we are going to use positive freedom as an analogy to Dynamic Quality I think we are going in the wrong direction. Dynamic Quality cannot be pigeon-holed like that. So by saying there is positive and negative freedom we are throwing out the analogy of freedom and Dynamic Quality. That seems wrong. I don't like it. Not even a little bit. Thank you, 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
