From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 01:02:00 BST
Hi Wim, and others,
MSH May 2004 14:22:07 -0700:
'Not sure I understand the "freedom is negative" part.'
wim said:
Maybe Pirsig's wording helps (from the 1984 afterword to 'Zen and the
art of motorcycle maintenance'): 'The hippies had in mind something
that they wanted, and were calling it "freedom", but in the final
analysis "freedom'' is a purely negative goal...' [quote continues]
msh says:
Thanks, Wim, for the reference, which does indeed clear up my
confusion over "freedom is negative." I agree we must be free to
create new static patterns of value, but I hope you don't mean by
this that we must tolerate immoral static patterns of value (social
institutions) until we can create "better" ones to replace them.
Some institutions are bereft of moral value entirely (slavery for
example, laws against homosexuality), so that dismantling them is
entirely positive. Even institutions that are not morally null, just
morally static or inferior, will be so firmly entrenched as to make
their replacement impossible without their destruction.
wim continued:
The task of DQ is 'freeing to create' (not just 'freeing from'). The
task of sq is latching what is created, holding on to the highest
available quality. Both are needed equally. Only by combining them
(neither putting DQ above sq, nor sq above DQ) can evolution proceed.
msh says:
Ok, now this is confusing to me, and sort of gets at the heart of our
exchange about the MOQ vs Wimaphysics. How can the concept of
"latching" be understood if DQ is not above SQ? How is it that when
an attempted latching fails, we "fall back" to a lower value. Now, I
understand what Wimaphysics is saying about DQ, and it may very well
be that Wimaphysics is superior in explanatory power and usefulness.
It just seems very clear to me that, in Pirsig's metaphysics, DQ is
at the absolute pinnacle of moral reality. Remember from ZMM, it's
the cutting plane of the speeding train, not back there in the
boxcars with all the static quality patterns of value.
wim said:
So if 'we want to talk [in this thread] about how current society
fails to attain the highest levels of freedom possible [and] how we
would see a more free society operating' (David M. amended by Mark H.
26 May 2004 21:00:25 -0700), we should 1) be clear that we are
talking about 'freedom to create' rather than about 'freedom from'
msh says:
I agree completely, with a slight nudge: Freedom means freedom to
create new static value patterns, and freedom from old static value
patterns that are shown be morally null.
wim asked:
At the biological level these Dynamic forces have to invent different
types of molecules. What do they invent at the social level?
msh answers:
Morally superior institutions.
Thanks again, for your thoughts.
msh
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun May 30 2004 - 00:58:48 BST