Dan said to dmb:
...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.
dmb says:
I suppose the idea probably seems confusing for some good reasons. But I'm
pretty sure this is already part of the MOQ. Pirsig doesn't always put it in
terms of positive and negative but the same basic idea comes up all over the
place. I think that the distinction is very important because, as in Marsha's
case, going without it will lead to anti-intellectualism and other distortions
of the MOQ. Please don't get upset but I'm pretty sure you're making the same
mistake on this point. That's probably why it seems confusing. Let me show you
what I mean...
Dan said:
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.
dmb says:
If we have the positive/negative distinction in mind as we read this, then
being Dynamic is not opposed to static patterns. It's the CLINGING that'll make
you miss your chance, not the static patterns as such. In terms of positive
freedom, it's the static patterns that make you READY to be lucky when that
chance arrives. Positive freedom is putting the static patterns to sleep
through mastery. This is not the same as clinging or being fixated or rigid,
etc.. Negative freedom isn't really freedom. It's just an escape from static
patterns. It might seem like a good idea to just let it all go because that
would be pretty much the opposite of clinging or being too static. But it's not
a good idea. The distinction between positive and negative freedom tells us why
it's not a good idea to abandon or ignore static quality. And without that
distinction or some other way to clarify these subtleties, Pirsig's warnings
against excessive rigidity will be misread and misconstrued as anti-
intellectualism. I think you're doing this a bit too, Dan, and I hope you'll
really try to see what I saying. Are you willing to be lucky? ;-)
Dan said to dmb:
I have no quarrel with any of these quotes. What caused me a bit of dis-ease
was your original statement: 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. ..Now, if we are working on a
recipe for real Dynamic Quality, we are entering the realm of the mystics, are
we not?
dmb says:
No, please do not confuse this with mysticism. It's one of my favorite topics
but, like I already said several times, I'm talking about creative intellect.
I'm making a point about static patterns BECAUSE there seems to be some
anti-intellectualism that needs fixing.
We must be reading the quotes very differently, Dan, because you say you only
have a quarrel with my statement but not with the quotes. The problem is that I
selected those quotes because they support my statement. Frankly, I'm baffled
that this is not obvious to you already. I'm just putting Pirsig ideas into my
own words, see....
dmb said - static quality is a crucial ingredient for Dynamic freedom.
rmp said - the trick is to "create a stable static situation where Dynamic
Quality can flourish"
rmp said - science's organization for the handling of the Dynamic is what makes
it superior.
rmp said - "That's the whole thing: to obtain static AND Dynamic Quality
SIMULTANEOUSLY"
"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)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.
Dan said:
... by saying there is positive and negative freedom we are throwing out the
analogy of freedom and Dynamic Quality. That seems wrong. ...The strength of
Dynamic freedom is a moving away from all patterns.
dmb says:
Think about what it would mean to move away from all patterns. That is at the
heart of my complaints. Pirsig says over and over again that the trick is to
have both static and Dynamic Quality at the same time. It's a balancing act,
not an evacuation of static patterns. That would just be vacuous nihilism.
Pirsig tells us, like 50 times, that it just doesn't work like that.
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
