Hello everyone On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said: > ... 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. > > > dmb says: > But, but, but Dan, -- the only thing you had to search was my post.
Dan: Well, well, well, Dave, you didn't say that you were talking about negative freedom, you said: Pirsig himself talks in terms of "negative" freedom and opposes it to Dynamic freedom. So I simply wanted to verify this for myself. What I found is that he talks in terms of static quality constraint as opposed to Dynamic freedom: "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." [Lila] He doesn't say its only perceived evil is negative freedom, you see. He says nothing about positive freedom vs negative freedom although I suppose it could be construed that way. I am unsure how helpful that is, however. dmb: > My claim was simply that Pirsig talks in terms of "negative" freedom and > opposes it to Dynamic freedom and here is the quote I already posted along > with that claim: "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." This, Pirsig says, is "what neither the socialists NOR the > capitalist ever got figured out". I mean, he's talking about freedom as an > escape from something "negative" and he's doing so in a political context. I > think it's a stretch to call this a stretch. > > BUT I'm not really talking about politics here. That distinction is just a > way to illustrate what I am talking about, namely "Dynamic freedom". Again, I > want to apply this distinction to intellectual values, to the way we think > and do philosophy, to Pirsig's root expansion of rationality and his > pragmatic theory of truth. I'm saying that static intellectual quality is a > crucial ingredient in the recipe for Dynamic freedom. Dan: Yes, I see what you mean. And I have no problem using freedom as an analogy for Dynamic Quality as (the way I read it) Robert Pirsig does just that in Lila. But when negative freedom is introduced I see it adding confusion to rather than illuminating the MOQ. The quote says quite clearly that it is not really "freedom" that they mean when they talk about escaping negativity. The quotes around "freedom" seem important here as a means of the underlying meaning RMP is trying to convey. Too, check out the preceding paragraph: "He remembered that its great symbol used to be the ticker tape, ticking out unpredictable fortunes rising and falling every second, a great symbol of luck. Luck. When E. B. White wrote, "If you want to live in New York you should be willing to be lucky," he meant not just "lucky" but willing to be lucky-that is, Dynamic. If you cling to some set static pattern, when opportunity comes you won't take it. You have to hang loose, and when the time comes to be lucky, then be lucky: that's Dynamic." Dan comments: Note how he is comparing Dynamic Quality and static quality here, how to be lucky means more than just being lucky... willing to be lucky... Dynamic as opposed to clinging to static patterns and foregoing opportunity when it arises. > > > Dan said: > 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 says: > Yea, I know the quote wherein Pirsig says that - and the context in which he > says it. This is given as the objection raised against metaphysics by > philosophical mystics. I do NOT disagree. I think it's a valid objection BUT > it is not an objection to my claim. If I had said that static intellectual > quality is a crucial ingredient in getting us closer to reality (or, more > properly, in getting us in touch with the mystic reality), then the quote > would make sense as evidence against my claims. But that's really just not > what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about the root expansion of rationality > wherein the handling of the Dynamic is built right into our ways of thinking. > This is not about mysticism or any attempts to fit the mystic reality into an > intellectual description. It's about creative freedom, particularly > intellectual creativity. That's what the following quote are all about. I'll > add some emphasis this time so you can see where I'm getting this claim.... > > "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". (Lila 222) > > "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." (Lila 222) > > Pirsig applies this basic principle in every example that I can think of AND > purpose is to explain the centrality and importance of this principle. > Static patterns are a crucial ingredient in Dynamic freedom. Or, to put it > negatively, Dynamic freedom cannot be had without static patterns. As Pirsig > says, the whole trick is to "create a stable static situation where Dynamic > Quality can flourish". More than a hundred pages later, he repeats this same > idea about the Dynamic within science. > > The MOQ "says that Dynamic Quality [is] the value-force that chooses an > elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment > over a confusing, inconclusive one" and "Dynamic value is an integral part of > science. It is the cutting edge of science itself." (Lila 366) Dan: I have no quarrel with any of these quotes. What caused me a bit of dis-ease was your original statement: dmb: > Pirsig is saying that static intellectual quality is a crucial ingredient in > the recipe for real freedom, for Dynamic freedom. Dan comments: Perhaps I read it wrongly but you seemed to be saying static intellectual quality is a crucial ingredient for us to recognize real Dynamic freedom, or real Dynamic Quality. I gather from reading Lila that the intellect (thought) isn't a route to reality/experience/Dynamic Quality. Now, if we are working on a recipe for real Dynamic Quality, we are entering the realm of the mystics, are we not? > > > Dan said: > ... 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. > > > > dmb says: > Huh? DQ cannot be Pigeon-holed like what? Dan: As negative and positive. dmb: > Again, I'm talking about the role of static patterns in creative freedom, in > creative thinking. Pirsig says DQ is the quality of freedom and static > quality is the quality order. And I'm trying to show how the recipe calls for > both kinds of quality. What seems wrong? Dan: That you are using the intellect as a crucial ingredient in the recipe to discover Dynamic Quality. dmb: What don't you like? Dan: Asked and answered. dmb: It's not just that I don't understand the objection, although that's true too, I'm not even sure if you and I are discussing the same topic. Dan: Me either. Going back to the first post under this topic I quoted an article concerning the jazz musician Bill Evans and his creative style: “It’s very important to remember,” Evans says, “that no matter how far I might diverge or find freedom in this format, it only is free insofar as it has reference to the strictness of the original form. And that’s what gives it its strength. In other words, there is no freedom except in reference to something.” Dan comments: What David H. and me seem to have been discussing (please feel free to correct me) is how this type of freedom relates, or does it relate, to Dynamic freedom. Evans states there is no freedom except in relation to something. I take that to mean (within the framework of the MOQ) intellectual freedom and not Dynamic freedom where we are free of all patterns. The strength of intellectual freedom lies in the referencing. The strength of Dynamic freedom is a moving away from all patterns. Creative thinking will always be in reference to something, right? 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
