Hello everyone On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Dan: Searching farther afield from Lila, I see that Anthony McWatt explores this a bit in his PhD thesis section 2.8.4. MYSTIC CRITICISM OF NAMING THE ULTIMATE REALITY: "A further issue that requires dealing with in respect for terminology of reality is the mystic criticism that any term employed for reality will be misleading due to the connotations (positive or negative) that any term will have." Dan: Now, I am not claiming to be a mystic but from a pragmatic point of view I think we need to respect the boundaries that Robert Pirsig has set up between a static quality reality that is intellectualized and a Dynamic reality which is to be kept free of all concepts. Labeling Dynamic freedom as negative and positive is misleading just as using any term to define it is. > 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: As I pointed out earlier, I am at a loss to find anywhere that Robert Pirsig uses negative freedom and positive freedom. I searched Lila. I searched Anthony McWatt's numerous works. I searched through various interviews and essays I have gathered over the years. I see where he refers to negative experiences like sitting upon hot stoves but that is not what I take to be a negative freedom. Please allow me to assuage your concerns in that I am not upset. But neither do I see that you have provided a satisfactory answer to my objections other than to attempt throwing sand in my face. Some kid tried doing that when I was but a wee lad. I got up and knocked the little fucker on his ass. But I didn't get upset then either... well, maybe just a little. :) > > 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: Well, though I am more than willing I find that I fall shy of being good-looking so I suppose being willing to be lucky is my next logical move. :) Still, this isn't quite right. Perhaps you've overlooked something in your hurry to answer my post and to save me from the clutches of anti-intellectualism but an escape from static patterns is analogous to escaping to Dynamic freedom... that is, Dynamic Quality's only perceived good. Now, from a static quality perspective this would indeed seem a negative notion but it isn't a negative freedom. > > > 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. Dan: Well, yes. As I explained, that is how this discussion began. Creative thinking, or creative intellect, has little to do with mysticism, at least in my understanding of the term. Creative intellect is always in reference to something. dmb: > I'm making a point about static patterns BECAUSE there seems to be some > anti-intellectualism that needs fixing. Dan: I don't see that as the problem so much as I see a problem in labeling Dynamic freedom as positive and negative. Here is something from ZMM that seems to confirm my suspicions: "The hippies had in mind something that they wanted, and were calling it "freedom," but in the final analysis "freedom" is a purely negative goal." [ZMM] Dan comments: Note again how he uses quotation marks around "freedom" to distinguish it from real freedom. Of course Dynamic freedom didn't exist when ZMM was written but even then Robert Pirsig took care in how he pointed to it. I think that might be your mistake, Dave. You using negative "freedom" as an analogy with negative Dynamic Quality, which just doesn't wash... well, it might wash but it won't come clean... dmb: > 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" Dan: This is a good point. And yes, perhaps putting it this way is better than how you put it here: "Pirsig is saying that static intellectual quality is a crucial ingredient in the recipe for real freedom, for Dynamic freedom." But I would still say there is a difference between real Dynamic freedom and a stable situation created so that Dynamic Quality can flourish. The former is free of all patterns; the latter while allowing Dynamic Quality to flourish constrains the situation with stable static patterns. This might be likened to Dynamic forces at work in the social level that lead to freedom of speech, trial by jury, and other rights. These are social freedoms, not real freedom, Dynamic freedom. > 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: As I explained, I have no problem with these quotes from Lila but none of them seem to uphold any notion of positive and negative Dynamic freedom. > > 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. Dan: That is not possible. That is why Dynamic Quality is to be kept concept-free. That doesn't mean to throw out all our intellectual patterns of quality, however. dmb: > 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. Dan: I don't see that I am espousing any such notion. I am simply saying Dynamic Quality should be kept concept-free. My concerns are not about killing static patterns but rather with having them overrun Dynamic Quality. >From the Copleston annotations: Similarly, we are free to pursue metaphysics or to leave it alone; but if we pursue it at all, we inevitably assume that a 'general view' of reality is possible, and therefore that reality as a whole is intelligible in principle. Robert Pirsig: If by “intelligible” is meant intellectually intelligible, then the MOQ does not state that reality as a whole is intelligible in principle. Dan comments: This is what I am saying as well. We cannot completely define reality intellectually but that isn't to say all intellectual patterns are meaningless, hypothetical, or untrue. Anyway, while you may believe I am pointing to some weird anti-intellectual position that distorts the MOQ, I see your position in labeling Dynamic freedom as negative and positive as a major distortion as well. Now, if you care to backtrack and say, oh, you know what? Maybe I misspoke. Maybe this is what I meant instead of that. Well then, perhaps you'd see our positions are not so far apart as they seem. Or perhaps not... 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
