Hello everyone On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, David and all MOQers: > > One of the sources of confusion here is that you're both reading my claims as > if I were talking about the mystic reality or Dynamic Quality itself - even > though I keep telling that I'm not talking about mysticism or the ultimate > reality. Obviously, we need to be on the same topic if we're going to > understand each other. Please hear me and believe me. By switching the topic > over to mysticism, my claims are moved into a very different context and so > will appear to have a meaning that is very different from my intentions. By > switching the topic over to the mystic reality, you will certainly > misunderstand I'm saying.
Dan: You keep trying to backtrack without admitting you either misspoke or were outright wrong. Okay. Play that game if you must. But it was you who brought up "real Dynamic freedom" and then labeled it positive and negative. I didn't. dmb: > And - this is a very important point - if the difference between Pirsig's > expanded rationality and Pirsig's mysticism is blurred or unclear, you will > certainly misunderstand what Pirsig is saying. This is one of Marsha's > central mistakes. She uses the mystic's objection to metaphysics (the > ultimate reality cannot named or otherwise fit into intellectual > descriptions) to denigrate the intellect in general, to distort the pragmatic > theory of truth and the art of rationality. These are two different topics > but she doesn't realize that and the result is to make a big mess of things. Dan: Honestly, I think you have let this thing with Marsha color your reasoning on just about everything, including what I am saying. Let it go. It isn't worth it. My advice? Ignore that kind of nonsense. dmb: > Sorry, but you guys both seem to be pushing back at my claims with quotes > from Pirsig on the topic of mysticism - even though I keep insisting that my > point is not on that topic. I take this to mean that you're not acknowledging > the distinction between mysticism and creative intellect. Dan: Well then you haven't read what I wrote... or if you read it you ignored it to keep on harping over this mystic nonsense. Not sure what more I can do other than quit this discussion as it seems to be going nowhere on a fast train. dmb: Without this distinction, the mystic's prohibition against naming the ultimate reality will be mistaken for a prohibition against naming anything at all, against intellectual descriptions of any kind. And Presto! You have a very vigorous form of anti-intellectualism wherein thinking about anything is a degenerate activity. I hope you can see how this might be quite a problem if your aim is to expand rationality so that science and philosophy are no longer value-free. Dan: Yes if one continues to read anti-intellectualism into every post, then we have a problem. I don't know as you will find anywhere that I mentioned the mystic's prohibition against naming ultimate reality in this particular discussion. I believe David H. and I did get into that briefly but only in passing. dmb: > That's why you really have to believe me when I tell you that this is NOT > about mysticism. It's about Pirsig's expansion and improvement of intellect - > and Pirsig does this by putting undefined Quality right into the center of > philosophy and science. I agree with the mystic's prohibitions against naming > the ultimate reality but that's simply not what I'm doing. I'm merely > explaining Pirsig ideas, trying to clarify the meaning of his books. I have > nothing to say about the ultimate reality but I have plenty to say about > Pirsig's philosophy. Okay, with that in mind, let's take a look at Dan's > objection.... Dan: I see. YOU are explaining Pirsig's ideas and WE have to believe YOUR interpretation of them lest WE are led astray. Gee. Thanks for explaining that to us poor fools who struggle to tie our own shoe laces and to take a drink of milk without having it run out of our noses. Come on, Dave. Really? Could you be just a little more condescending if you tried real hard? > > > Dan said to dmb: > 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. > > dmb says: > This is an example of what I was just saying. You are taking "positive" and > "negative" as definitions of Dynamic reality itself. Dan: No Dave. You are making that supposition. I disagreed, remember? Do I have to reproduced your quote again? Does "real Dynamic freedom" ring a bell? dmb: That is switching the topic to mysticism, which totally changes the meaning. I'm talking about creative intellect, not mysticism and so I'm not using these terms to define or describe DQ. Instead, the distinction between positive and negative freedom is all about how we treat static quality. One involves mastery and the other involves rejection and escape. Positive freedom is the ability or capacity to exercise real options, to create real solutions, whereas negative freedom is merely a lack of restraints. This distinction between two kinds of freedom is not an attempt to name of define the ultimate reality. Dan: Now see. How hard was that. David H. made a very compelling argument along these very same lines by using the notion of different kinds of freedom. I objected to that as well. But at least we are getting back to a real discussion. I took a minute to look up the definition of freedom: 1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. So I have to ask... why do we need negative as a qualifier here? > > > 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. > > > dmb says: > > Hmmm. You keep saying you can't find anywhere that Pirsig uses these terms. > This is very frustrating. I've posted A quote WHEREIN Pirsig uses the term > "negative" in relation to "freedom" several times already. And you posted one > that employes those terms too. > > "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." > "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." > > I think we should be able to put this objection to bed now, don't you? Dan: Don't you wish! :) Robert Pirsig clearly says this is NOT right. That is why (I presume) he uses the quotes around "freedom" in both cases. "Freedom" doesn't mean anything. They called it "freedom" but that WAS NOT RIGHT! The hippies vision of "freedom" only led to their own demise. dmb: The hippies, Pirsig says elsewhere, rejected social and intellectual values in a mistaken effort to be free. That was their mistake. They only escaped something negative rather than achieving something positive and so what could have been an improvement turned out to be mostly degenerate. Because biological quality and Dynamic Quality are not social or intellectual, they confused mere hedonism with real freedom. In any case, we can all see that Pirsig does indeed talk about he dangers of negative freedom, of merely rejecting or escaping from static patterns. Dan: No, "we" don't all see that. You might. If he meant freedom to be negative, why did he use quotes around it? Can't you see he is pointing at a very subtle nuance here? The hippies THOUGHT it was "freedom" they were pursuing. But instead they were only moving in the direction of biological quality, not toward Dynamic freedom. > > Dan comments on the hippie quote: > 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 says: > Dynamic freedom didn't exist when ZAMM was written? Dan: Well, no, not in the sense he uses the term in Lila. Check it out: "With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. And when you really understand dynamic reality you never get stuck. It has forms but the forms are capable of change." [ZMM] See? He doesn't capitalize dynamic as he comes to do in Lila. Nor does he associate dynamic with freedom except where he talks about Harry Truman: "Harry Truman, of all people, comes to mind, when he said, concerning his administration's programs, ``We'll just try them -- and if they don't work -- why then we'll just try something else.'' That may not be an exact quote, but it's close. The reality of the American government isn't static, he said, it's dynamic." Again, RMP is laying the groundwork for the MOQ here but there is no full-fledged metaphysics at this point. He is using the term "dynamic" in a way associated with change, not Dynamic as in Dynamic Quality. dmb: >Well, the terms "static" and "Dynamic" become the central terms in Lila but he >was already using them in his conclusions about this very topic, creative >freedom, especially in relation to his central metaphor (the artful mechanic). >He is talking about positive freedom even if doesn't use that particular term >for it. Dan: Ah. So he didn't use the term. But he is talking about positive freedom? Isn't he smart enough to know he should be using that term? He never thought about it? Is that what you are saying? And yes, creative freedom is at the root of the discussion I've been having with David H. for the last few months. Maybe you didn't notice. That's okay. We are, or I should say I am, just a stumbling idiot who has a hard time knowing not to stand on my head in the rain. dmb: The idea is still there even if he uses various terms for it. Like I said, this distinction can be found throughout both books and, as we see in the quotes above, sometimes he does use those specific terms and explicitly says that NEGATIVE freedom differs from meaningful freedom. Dan: Where does he explicitly say this? > > > > Dan said: > ... 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. > > > dmb says: > > No, Dan, that's the crucial error I'm talking about. I'm talking about > creative intellect, wherein it makes no sense to be "free" of all static > patterns. Dan: Jesus fucking Christ, Dave. What do I have to do to get you to read what I write? Am I just wasting my time with you? I will re-post this for the umpteenth time: 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. Do you get that now? I can make a podcast of it if the words are not clear enough. dmb: This is switching the topic over to mysticism. In conflating these two topics you will certainly misunderstand what I'm saying and you'll misread Pirsig too. Dan: IF that is what I am saying, yes. BUT IT ISN'T WHAT I AM SAYING. dmb: The mystic reality or DQ itself is free of static patterns but I'm talking about creative intellect, about "science's organization for the handling of the Dynamic" and Pirsig's claim that "the whole thing [is] 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." If we were talking about mysticism it would makes sense to talk about being free of all static patterns but since we are talking about the art of rationality, getting free of all static patterns would be the worst kind of degenerate, negative freedom. In the context of science, rationality, philosophical t > hinking, escaping from all static patterns would be a complete disaster. And > if you use the mystic's prohibition against naming the ultimate reality to > prohibit the use of intellectual descriptions in science and philosophy, then > you will certainly end up holding a profoundly anti-intellectual position. > This is one of Marsha's most destructive mistakes, from which many other > errors flow. Dan: I don't care. So what. If Marsha is making destructive mistakes what do I care. I mean, honestly. I think she is intelligent enough to come around to seeing them in the end if she is making such disastrous moves. Why are you so troubled about that? Let it go. > > Dan said: > 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. > > dmb says: > Okay, I hear you saying that your intention is to protect DQ from being > overrun and you haven't intended to espouse any anti-intellectualism. But I'm > trying to get you to see how you're ending up there anyway. This is the > result even if it's not your intention. Please notice how your efforts to > protect DQ from definition have resulting in shutting down my attempt to > discuss the intellect! Dan: Shutting down YOUR attempt at discussing the intellect! Kind of full of ourselves, aren't we Dave? Last time I checked it takes two people to discuss something. And if I am not mistaken, me and David H. were doing quite well on our own. You came into the discussion and made an erroneous statement and I called you on it. And you cannot defend yourself other than attempting to shift YOUR discussion to anti-intellectualism. And it is not MY intention to protect Dynamic Quality from all concepts. It is Robert Pirsig's intentions. Don't you know that? If you want to play with negative and positive freedom, by all means do it. But at least make an effort to bolster your argument. So far, you haven't. dmb: I've been quoting Pirsig on the topic of mastering those static intellectual patterns and you keep coming back with quotes prohibiting the use of static patterns. I'm talking about what makes scientific progress possible, what makes creativity and innovation possible and yet, despite my repeated protests, you're taking this to mean something like a claim "that reality as a whole is intelligible in principle" and then warning me that "we cannot completely define reality intellectually". > > We don't disagree on that point, Dan. But it's a mistake to make that point > in this context because I'm not trying to define all of reality. I'm doing > something much less ambitious; to explain Pirsig's repair job on rationality. > Isn't this the focal point of his work, after all. He says that he did > absolute nothing for Quality or the Tao, what benefits from his work, he > says, is REASON and rationality. That's where we have a problem and that's > where he has a solution. That's why anti-intellectualism is such a > heart-breaking misinterpretation. It spoils the main point and purpose of his > work. > > "Now I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be > tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the > formal recognition of Quality in its operation." > > This is how he gets rid of value-free science, makes truth and intellect > itself a species of value, makes motorcycle mechanics into motorcycle > scientists and artists. This improvement is achieved through a formal > recognition of Quality in the operation of rationality. And yet we have > MOQers using Pirsig's mysticism to assert that intellect should never have > anything to do with Quality! Oh dude, that is a misconception right in the > middle of it all, a total wrecking ball. Dan: IF that is what I am doing, I would agree with you. It is YOUR interpretation of what I am doing though. And, as I said, I think you are projecting your problems with Marsha onto what I am saying and not even reading my words. > > Here's a way to think about it that might help. > > The problem, Pirsig says, is that "Reason and Quality had become separated > and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato. More specifically > Plato had made Quality subordinate to reason. The solution is to reverse that > priority. "Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality." That's how > he puts it in ZAMM but then you see this same solution in Lila. "That was > exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." To say that > truth is within a larger entity called Quality is to say that reason is > subordinate to Quality. As the mystic will point out, Quality cannot be > defined because definitions can only exist within Quality. Definitions have a > relationship to this larger and more primary reality but it is a subordinate > relationship. DQ can't be put into an intellectual truth because intellectual > truths are within DQ, derived from DQ, were formed on the basis of DQ. It's > that cont ai > ner problem, right? > > "Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and include it > within the world we have created, is clearly impossible. That is why Quality > cannot be defined. If we do define it we are defining something less than > Quality itself." > > To define Quality is to subordinate it to reason or intellect. We both agree > Quality can't be defined. But I'm talking about Pirsig's reformed intellect, > which is improved by making it subordinate to Quality, by making the formal > recognition that our intellectual truths exist within Quality and are > subordinate to it. Then having them both simultaneously not only failed to be > a transgression, it's exactly what you want when practicing the art of > rationality or any other high quality endeavor. Dan: I see no problems here. 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
