Dan said to dmb:
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?
dmb says:
Why do we need "negative" as a qualifier for "freedom"? Well, I'm sure we could
use other terms to express the same idea. We don't really NEED it in that
sense. BUT I think it's perfectly legitimate to examine what Pirsig is saying
when he uses the term. That's all I'm really trying to get at. Is there any
reason why we should not explore the meaning of the quotes wherein Pirsig uses
the term "negative" in relation to "freedom"? I really don't understand your
resistance on this point.
"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."
Dan replied:
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 says:
Yes, that's exactly my point about negative freedom. Yes, he puts scare quotes
around this negative "freedom" because it doesn't really live up to the name
and he wants to contrast it with real freedom, with positive freedom, with
Dynamic freedom. They call it "freedom", but it's really just an escape from
something negative. It's just freedom FROM static patterns, as opposed to the
positive freedom that comes from mastering those static patterns. In these
quotes, we can all see that Pirsig does indeed talk about he dangers of
NEGATIVE freedom, of merely rejecting or escaping from static patterns.
Dan replied:
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.
dmb says:
If he meant freedom to be negative? Huh? No, obviously he is portraying
negative freedom as very inferior to positive freedom and this is whole my
point. We want to understand the difference between these two kinds of freedom
because one is degenerate and the other serves creativity and the evolutionary
process.
dmb had said:
..., 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 replied:
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?
dmb says:
No, I'm just saying that we, as readers, should be able to see the idea even
though it is expressed using various terms. The same basic CONCEPT can be
represented with lots of different words. There is wealth, coin, cash, funds,
assets, net worth, dough, bucks, bank, and lots of other words for money. It
would be far too restrictive to insist that Pirsig couldn't be talking about
"positive" freedom unless he uses that particular term for it. Why would anyone
want to be so inflexible as a reader and a thinker?
Dan said:
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.
dmb says:
Anti-intellectualism was the point of this discussion from the very beginning.
I've been trying to explain that anti-intellectualism is a form of negative
freedom, that it is degenerate and worthy of condemnation. I'm still trying to
make the same point about freedom. I have not shifted the topic. As far as a
defense goes, I've posted dozens of quotes that support my claim and, in some
cases, offered explanations as to how they support my claim. Apparently, you
don't see the connections between the text and my claims about it. This saddens
and frustrates me. What's worse are the insults, the anger and resentment (and
even the suggestion of violence) that you've expresses in response to my
efforts. Is this what I should expect anytime I dare to suggest that you might
be wrong about something?
I don't how many times I've posted on this particular point but I can tell you
that, yes, I've been trying to correct you. I think you're making a mistake.
I've been trying to explain WHY it's a mistake and why it's IMPORTANT to avoid
this mistake. Being corrected is kinda hard on the old ego and so I began with
a personal plea not to get upset by this correction. Sadly, I think you still
don't understand what I'm saying, you remain uncorrected and you're also
reacting like an uncivilized child. It's very uncool, Dan, and very
disappointing.
Yes, it takes at least two people to have a proper discussion.
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
