Hi Horse:
> On 26 Mar 2002 at 10:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Here are a couple of quotes that convince me that DQ is synonymous
> > with freedom: (Caps added)
> >
> > "It (DQ)contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. ITS
> > ONLY PERCEIVED GOOD IS FREEDOM and its only perceived evil is
> > static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to
> > contain and kill the ongoing FREE FORCE OF LIFE." (9)
> >
> > "Although Dynamic Quality, THE QUALITY OF FREEDOM, creates this
> > world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of
> > order, preserve our world." (9)
> >
> > "This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't
> > defined by society or intellect or biology. What's GOOD IS FREEDOM FROM
> > DOMINATION BY ANY STATIC PATTERN, but that freedom doesn't have to be
> > obtained by destruction of the patterns themselves." (24)
> >
> > In other words, it's not love, compassion, or caring that's the highest
> > value. It's DQ, the "quality of freedom."
Horse:
> Love compassion and caring are static patterns of value as is freedom.
Love, compassion and caring are emotions. Freedom is the absence
of pattern. From Chapter 17: "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."
Horse:
> They
> are aspects of DQ but not DQ itself (i.e. synonymous = identical). This
> must be because freedom is defineable (static pattern of value) and DQ is
> not. Freedom is an essential component of DQ and without freedom it is not
> possible to move towards Dynamic Quality:
Freedom (DQ) is the absence of static patterns. Nothing "moves
toward" DQ. Ends tend to be static except when they are "greater levels
of versatility and freedom." DQ is pure, unaldulterated experience. It
can't be defined because DQ itself is doing the defining. Wilber is right
on this: an eye cannot see itself.
Horse:
> "It seems as though any static mechanism that is open to Dynamic Quality
> must also be open to degeneracy-to falling back to lower forms of quality.
> This creates the problem of getting maximum freedom for the emergence of
> Dynamic Quality while prohibiting degeneracy from destroying the
> evolutionary gains of the past. Americans like to talk about all their
> freedom but they think it's disconnected from something Europeans often see
> in America: the degeneracy that goes with the Dynamic."
Yes. Freedom allows degeneracy. That's the risk. From Chap. 17: "It's
the freedom to be so awful that gives it the freedom to be so good." A
socialist European city is a "dull place because there's little Dynamic
Quality." (Chap.17) Americans often see Europeans as more
concerned with static security than Dynamic freedom.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:04 BST