Hi dmb, I'm sure you already know but philosophical discussion by its very nature, is going to be very painful and frustrating. Philosophy requires one to confront one's own static intellectual values and which by their very nature, don't like to change.. This is where the frustration and pain comes in..
We agree with a lot of things about the MOQ, we'd be kidding ourselves if, without even talking, we'll have the exact same ideas and values on everything under the sun. In my discussions with Dan I've found that even though our discussion has been going on for months, and at times it has been frustrating, through this frustration and suffering I have become better acquainted with the MOQ simply by having to constantly confront the deeply held beliefs I have about it. This isn't easy but they only way we become better people is by suffering *through* things.. Which is actually what we're talking about.. I'll summarise my views on our differences here.. You've argued for the quality of the terms negative and positive freedom when we break up quality.. The reasons I've disagreed with these two terms are as follows: 1. There are historical aspects to this distinction which are culturally based and thus not in any way related to Dynamic freedom. 2. Associating Dynamic freedom with something positive is dangerous as it loosely associates Dynamic Quality with something positive or affirmative... Pirsig: Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not that.” The reasons you've provided that it's good to use these two terms are.. 1. Pirsig has said that 'freedom' is just an escape from something negative.. 2. Pirsig has juxtaposed this 'negative freedom' with Dynamic freedom in a quote provided by you.. "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." To re-iterate, I don't think we disagree that there are two types of freedom and the philosophical benefits of doing such.. All we appear to disagree on is the names for those two freedoms.. > David Harding said to dmb: > I agree with your conclusion here, ...however I still disagree here with the > use of the terms negative and positive freedom. ...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. ...I don't see the parallel here with > 'negative freedom' as originally espoused by Hegel.. which appears to be > sociologically based. ...Are you suggesting that positive freedom is Dynamic > freedom? I'll re-iterate here that I think positive freedom is related to > cultural circumstances. It's distinction with negative freedom has been > created to highlight the quality of improved freedom culturally. These > things are important but are not related to being free of all patterns in the > way that Dynamic freedom and Zen mastery is. > dmb says: > Hegel? Oh, come on! I've already said it several times but I'll say it again. > "We're not really talking about politics here", but the distinction is useful > in that context too. Pirsig uses the distinction in that context but, again, > I want to apply this distinction to the intellectual level, to the way we do > philosophy and science and such. You continue to object on the grounds that > it's just about culture or politics even though I keep telling that it's not > about that. This is kinda weird and very frustrating. I don't object to your distinction between two types of freedom. We both agree and see the value in doing so. I object to the use of the two terms for the reasons described above. One of those reasons is that historically these terms have been used to signify the sociological aspect of the terms negative and positive freedom. > And even if I were talking politics, you'd be objecting to a move that Pirsig > himself makes > > In the following quote Pirsig is describing, "what neither the socialists NOR > the capitalist ever got figured out" and he is contrasting the hallowed > Dynamic freedom with NEGATIVE freedom. > > "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." > > Again, "we CAN apply this distinction to the freedom of Zen monks or to > political freedom", but I want to examine its application to intellectual > values. I want to apply this distinction to the way we think and do > philosophy, show how it relates to Pirsig's root expansion of rationality and > his pragmatic theory of truth. My main POINT is this: static intellectual > quality is a crucial ingredient in the recipe for real freedom, for Dynamic > freedom. This is about excellence in thought and speech, not mysticism or > politics. Okay? Can we please all agree that a person knows what his own > point is? Yeah, I get your point. Once again, I have no issue with the distinction between freedom and Dynamic freedom. I just have an issue with the naming of these freedoms negative and positive. > David Harding said: > ...Marsha's devaluation of the stable, high quality intellectual values of > truth means that she has nothing to master and thus does not improve her > understanding. But you seem to imply that this is the only way Marsha can > experience DQ and I disagree. Marsha can choose to master anything she > wishes. It doesn't have to be philosophy. But being that this is a > philosophical discussion board, it's implied that she's here to become a > better philosopher. Thus our accusations of bad philosophy. > > dmb says: > You think I'm implying that this is the only way Marsha can experience DQ? To > read that implication I think you'd have to ignore what I'm explicitly > saying, which is that Marsha's apathy about truth and general hostility > toward static intellectual values is both incorrect and morally degenerate. I > have explicitly said this several times. This is about Marsha's > anti-intellectualism. It's about the intellectual disaster that results when > "killing" the intellectual patterns is taken negatively instead of > positively. It is just negative freedom when it's taken to mean we should > escape from them or fight them with other static patterns. But positive > freedom, Dynamic freedom means you kill them by mastering them and making > them part of your nature. Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that! (Except the term 'positive freedom'.) In fact, the above makes the same point without the term.. > "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." > > Again, static intellectual quality is a crucial ingredient for this kind of > positive freedom. That's what it takes, as Pirsig puts it, to "create a > stable static situation where Dynamic Quality can flourish". This is the > point. Static intellectual patterns are necessary to create a stable > situation where DQ can flourish. You gotta have both at the same time. 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. Yes, it stops evolutionary advances on the intellectual level. This is all intellectual. And I don't disagree with any of it. It is anti-intellectual for Marsha to come onto a philosophical discussion board and say that she has no interest in truth. > "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." Yes… this quote seems familiar…. :-) Thank-you 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
