MF: What is freedom ? If permissible , I would like to propose a definition of freedom : 1) Freedom in the context of the individual is basically the experience of the individual in feeling that the environment or the circumstances in which one is placed (or exists) is in harmony and supportive of one's self, rather than being a constraint or a limitation. In other words it is an experience (and thereby a response) of a being's oneness and uniqueness with one's circumstances . This conception of freedom is somewhat analogous to the Buddhist concept of Enlightenment. 2) Freedom in the social context is an ACT or DEED performed by an individual or group of individuals in that society that harmonises and supports NOT ONLY that particular society (or group or race )BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANTLY all of forms of life (in their natural balance) that are present in the environment of that society. 3) Freedom in the objective context is that set of AGREED UPON RULES that a society derives and follows as a result of event no 2) above. 4) Freedom is the sense of responsibility and contribution in an individual towards that set of AGREED UPON RULES as in no 3 above. Freedom and MOQ : Since no 1) and no 2) are events , they can said to be the dynamic qualities of freedom, no 3) and 4) the static qualities of freedom. To quote David Buchanan "Static patterns are temporary forms through which DQ expresses itself " This can thus be rewritten as "Agreed upon rules (static patterns) are the temporary form by which the dynamic quality of freedom expresses itself. Freedom and Order : These concepts are not really opposites , as Diana points out: "sometimes order IS freedom ", but only sometimes - depending upon the QUALITY of order and how it is derived - from acts of freedem or from acts of exploitation for personal or ratial gains . Clearly , order imposed by a tyrrany opposes freedom , and I feel that Pirsig has used the word order in that context , quite rightly , for the onslaught of the Europeans upon the Indians was an example of an imposition of a tyrranical order. The Indians chose death instead of this european order, for their sense of freedom and lifestyle conflicted with that of the Europeans, and they knew that to submit to the Europeans sense of order and lifestyle would destroy their sense of freedom and lifestyle which they valued more than death.In this sense their VALUE FOR freedom far exceeded that of the Europeans of that time. The Europeans at the same time did not really want to bring order or civilization to the Indians , and were only too happy to engage the Indians in a death match , knowing fully well that the power of technology was on their side , so that all the land and resources of the vast continent would be theirs to exploit. Therefore Pirsig is not quite correct in terms of freedom vs order, for from the Indian point of view it was clearly their freedom vs greed of the Europeans Of cource the European point of view is justified too !: They had ventured on this noble path of exploration of the planet, and at many places were even treated as Gods , for they had magical devices which performed miracles. Their goal was to civilize the entire planet so that a great order could be brought about on this Earth. And as any European was free to participate so who said that they did not value freedom ? So as the Americas were discovered, europeans risked their lives, leaving their homes on this noble venture. But the native people in N America would have no part in this quest and instead attacked the Europeans everywhere.The Europeans of cource had to defend themselves against these barbarians who had no understanding of the value of reason and order. The Europeans used all peaceful means, including treaties, in order to civilize the Indians , but the Indians despite dying in great numbers in the wars, refused to work in cooperation with the Europeans. Unfortunately for the Indians the Europeans had no other choice but to clear the place of animals of all kinds including Indians, so that the land could be put to far better use. And if the Indians were not available for working in cooperation, there were other places (Africa)on this earth where people could be convinced to cooperate in this grand venture. These two extreme points of view illustrate that the concept of freedom can be very different for different cultures and the only criterion that can make the concept of freedom a universal one is that of equal support for all of life in its natural balance and ways. Gsingh ------- End of forwarded message ------- MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
