Hi Platt
On 5 Apr 2002 at 8:53, Platt Holden wrote:
> I certainly could be wrong, too. Perhaps we can agree that freedom is
> closely associated with DQ. In the passage you cited above where
> freedom is "just an escape from something negative," the negative
> being referred to IMO is the heel of a government jackboot on your neck
> (which I'm especially sensitive to now because this is the time of year
> when U.S. citizens are required to file a Federal income tax return).
Yuk - sounds horrible. The UK system seems a lot easier in that you just pay a
percentage each month or week after deductions and allowances are taken into
account. Unless you're self employed in which case it's a similar system to yours.
But I think we do agree on the basic idea that freedom and DQ are inseperable and
closely related. Actually I think we agree on a lot more things MoQ-related than we
disagree - which has got to be a good thing.
>
> For me the most important passage is: "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."
I used to have a real problem with the above but recently it has made so much
more sense. I suppose it takes a while to 'get it'.
> "Freedom to choose" is the supreme social/intellectual value that
> millions in the Western world have sacrificed their lives to protect.
Personally I would put that firmly in the Intellectual level as social value generally
provides for little choice.
> Finally, again my thanks to you Horse for keeping this site alive and
> well. IMO it's the highest intellectual level conversation on the web.
Happy to do so and it does keep me off the streets - most of the time. :^)
Just one thing though (in case anyone thinks that all this Platt/Horse bonhomie is
catching) and I do mean this in an entirely inquisitive sense:
On 29 Mar 2002 at 8:01, Platt Holden wrote:
> 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.
I started to think of London in the mid to late 1960's. This was a classic case of an
extremely dynamic period in terms of music, art, dance etc. and yet was smack bang in
the middle of the Wilson government and most socialist period in the UK ever (I think).
Contrast this with London in the mid to late 1980's and the consolidated Thatcher period
of almost unrestrained capitalism and you have the most boring place on the planet
(almost). It was so naff I got out and went back to school for 3 years.
How do you explain my experience of London in the 2 periods and Pirsig's declaration
above. Just wondering.
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