Hi Platt
I was almost convinced by your arguments but there was something that kept nagging at
me. If Freedom and Dynamic Quality are the same thing then why didn't Pirsig just say
that? He seems to spend a great deal of time conveying the message that DQ is
undefineable:
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without
choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's
behavior is free."
and that it is the cutting edge of reality:
"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things,
completely simple and always new"
etc. but I can't find anywhere in the book where he simply states that Freedom and DQ
are one and the same. The closest he comes to it is:
"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. Neither static nor
Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
where he has the perfect opportunity to spell it out but he doesn't do so and I keep
coming back to:
"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."
wherin he effectively denies that they are the same thing. Freedom is negative, DQ (P.
implies) is positive.
Freedom and DQ are very closely related but I still think that freedom is a necessary
pre-condition for DQ and not DQ itself:
"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."
But as our good chum Rog says: "I could be wrong"
Horse
On 29 Mar 2002 at 8:01, Platt Holden wrote:
> 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
>
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 - 16:02:09 BST