Hi dmb,
> dmb said:
> 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 the mystic reality, you will certainly misunderstand what I'm
> saying.
>
> David Harding replied:
> ...I have no disagreement with you on content, just the words that you are
> using. In fact, it's just one word - positive. I have an issue with
> associating 'Dynamic freedom' with 'positive freedom'. However loosely you
> want to say that association is, Dynamic freedom is the freedom one
> experiences as a result of Dynamic Quality. If you associate that freedom
> with something positive then you are logically associating Dynamic Quality
> with something positive. ...To call that freedom 'positive freedom' is a
> huge misnomer because it associates Dynamic Quality with something positive.
> I only disagree with you on names not content.
>
>
> dmb says:
> You are doing exactly what I asked you not to do. You are treating my
> comments as if I am talking about DQ itself. I'm not.
And as I explained, you cannot ignore the influence of Dynamic Quality on
freedom. This is why the terms positive and probably negative freedom is best
avoided. Can we not have a disagreement?
> In Pirsig's example of jumping off the hot stove, for example, DQ is quite
> negative and so it is with the ameba that swims away from sulfuric acid. I'm
> not associating DQ with the "positive" because that simply not what I talking
> about AND even if I were talking about DQ I wouldn't make that claim.
I disagree with the statement that DQ is quite negative when we jump off the
hot stove.. The hot stove is low quality biologically… Jumping off the stove
is a 'vague sense of he knows not what' aka. undefined betterness(DQ).
And I explained how when we talk about freedom we cannot ignore the influence
of Dynamic Quality to that freedom. Remember, the MOQ is mysticism. It's
intellectual mysticism and it's fully aware of its contradiction in terms when
it claims as much. This is why Pirsig discovers that, more than just our
traditional sense of freedom as an escape from something negative, there is
also another type of freedom which can be found through mastery..
> The phrase "positive freedom" is not a name or label for DQ. And I'd happily
> give up that particular word ("positive") if I thought it would help to stop
> the confusion. The IDEA is what I want to get across, after all, and there
> are other terms to use in making this point, in making the distinction
> between mastery of static patterns (positive freedom) and escape or rejection
> of static patterns (negative freedom).
I don't see that distinction actually so it seems there is actually more to our
differences than the terms we use... Yes, we can experience DQ through mastery
and call that Dynamic freedom, however normal, ordinary everyday freedom is not
an escape or rejection of static patterns as a whole. It is a rejection of *a
particular set* of negative patterns.
And before you misunderstand me here and say that this is not your point - I
can see how you are tying 'negative freedom' with the mistake Marsha makes.
But I don't think that is the mistake she makes. I think it's close to a good
description but not quite..
Marsha does indeed reject patterns.. She's not interested in mastery of her
ideas.. Marsha rejects the set of patterns called 'truth' and claims to be free
of them. But as we both know, freedom isn't just pretending that something
doesn't exist. True freedom is found not in a rejection of a particular set
of patterns, it is found in the mastery of them so that they no longer exist…
If you reject the set of patterns called 'truth' which represents high quality
ideas then naturally you are rejecting good ideas. If you reject good ideas
on a philosophy forum then that is pretty ugly.. That's what I think her
mistake is - it's her de-emphasis of the value of truth.
Now I can see a second possible objection that would say that Marsha appears to
not care about static patterns as a whole, and that is why it's good to claim
that she rejects them all. But I don't think that it's as simple as that. If
she *truly* rejected static patterns as a whole then she would be *truly* free
of them. The only way to be *truly* free of all static patterns as a whole is
through mastery of them. This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes about
Dynamic freedom..
"The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free
yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static
patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free
yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master
them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature.
You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone."
And this is juxtaposed with what you call 'Negative freedom'. "Freedom is
just an escape from SOMETHING negative". That's what ordinary everyday
freedom is - an escape from something negative in particular. Not, like
Dynamic freedom, an escape from all patterns.. That's Marsha's mistake, she
doesn't see the value in Dynamic freedom and mastery of one's ideas and the
truth which results...
A final objection I can think of is how does Marsha's mystic relativism end up
sounding as if she rejects all patterns, if that is not what she does? Because
she doesn't value the distinctions made between ideas. If you don't value
truth then you aren't going to value any intellectual distinctions.
Finally, as an aside - your frustrations with misunderstandings and
disagreements here I find rather curious.. Of course we are going to have
disagreements and struggle to explain our ideas so that others understand them.
This is what the MD is all about IMHO. We are here to explain our
understanding of the MOQ to others. If someone's ideas are better than my own,
I'll tell them. If I don't think what they say explains my experience as good
as it could I'll tell them. Philosophy discussion is never easy. But I'd argue
that through that struggle it's rewarding as well...
If I have mischaracterised your argument here, or if you agree with what I've
written all along, I'm sure I'll hear about it..
Thanks 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
