From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 17 2004 - 07:36:28 BST
Hello everyone
>From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of freedom
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:15:06 EDT
>
>In a message dated 7/16/04 9:21:38 PM GMT Daylight Time,
>daneglover@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> > Personal freedom is my ability to participate in Flow activities of my
> > >choosing
> > >for the greatest amount of time, all the while not prohibiting or
>making it
> > >otherwise restrictive on others from participating in Flow activities
>of
> > >their
> > >choosing.
> >
>
>Arlo and Dan,
>Arlo's terms, 'personal' 'my' and 'others' are rooted in SOM.
>Dan's phrase, 'metaphysics of freedom' is confusing; The Metaphysics Of
>Quality already provides arguably the best description of patterned freedom
>there
>is: coherence.
Hi Mark
The change of phrase was merely to start a different thread. It was meant to
have no meaning other than just that. How could that be confusing? It was
meant to REDUCE confusion in case anyone cared to respond.
I know you've been asked this before and I already know the answer but
still, I can't help asking it again: if you don't mind, please point out to
me where the term "coherence" occurs in Robert Pirsig's writings. Perhaps
then the rest of your post will make a little more sense.
>
>Coherence specifically concerns and takes into account the MOQ's four
>levels
>of evolution, and may therefore avoid the terms, 'personal' 'my' and
>'others'
>if carefully applied. The individual is simply a coherent state dominated
>at
>various stages by one or more levels.
This seems rather silly to me, no more than conjecture.
>Coherence is closer to the code of art in that it allows maximum freedom
>within patterns and minimum patterned relationships.
Um, what? and where?
>
>It may be argued that each person, as Arlo suggests, will value a coherent
>state dominated by particular level(s) depending on the fluctuations of
>season,
>desire, social expectation and intellectual value. Dan wishes to morally
>bias
>the Intellectually dominated - fair but impractical - in the real world
>many
>people value biological and social patterns over intellectual patterns.
>
>It has often been noted that the older one becomes the more Conservative
>one
>becomes. The MOQ would describe this as an accumulation of static patterns
>which close off Dynamic influence. Platt Holden is an ugly example of this
>in
>action. Utterly repulsive.
>
>Coherence, on the other hand, may increase AND remain open to Dynamic
>influence because static patterns are held in 'purposeless tension' or
>sq-sq tension.
>I feel Pirsig himself is a beautiful example of this; although well into
>his
>70's he remains fresh and invigorating.
>
>For a few, intense coherence totally removes concern about freedom. After
>all, as Dan quotes Pirsig, "If you’re not suffering from anything
>there’s no
>need to be free."
I'm sorry Mark but I just can't make a lot of sense out of this entire post,
excepting the last sentence. You're not talking the MOQ here. You're talking
about some kind of a personal "improvement" in the MOQ, I suppose, but it
seems much too complicated to me and I'm fearful of getting lost. If it
makes sense to you, fine, but I think I'll just stick to the map.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
PS I did like your "Coherence and Rhetoric" post.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
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 : Sat Jul 17 2004 - 07:45:02 BST