From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 17:08:17 BST
Hi Dan,
My turn to apologize for the delay in responding...
>>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.
>>
>>Or, in the quick Wiccan mantra: And it harm none, do what ye will.
>
>Hi Arlo
>
>Please forgive the delay. I needed to look into the idea of freedom a bit
>further before answering your post of July 13.
>
>According to your answer, may I ask what is it that keeps a person with
>such a life philosophy from slipping into hedonism?
First, let me say that I am trying to learn the concept of coherence, as
it's been laid out in this forum, but since "freedom" in MOQ terms is
something I am only wrestling with just now, I don't have the vocabulary to
address this (but I am trying!).
Onward, then... As I think about this, I am wondering if a problem occurs
when we address "freedom" irrespective of particular levels (this comes up
from the quotes you provided). "Hedonism", as you state "intellectual
advocacy of biological quality", could be restated "intellectual advocacy
of biological freedom". Utilitarianism is, in the same vein, the
intellectually advocacy of social freedom.
The key here is to notice that "freedoms" on upper levels are made possible
by "static latching" on those levels (and by default lower levels). Thus,
"social freedoms" can only exist in a stable social structure (I would not
be able to ride my Harley without a society that is structured to produce
motorcycles and roads, and provide me with open time which I can fill with
an activity of my choosing-- this "freedom" is entirely dependant on static
latching). "Intellectual freedoms" can only exist in a stable intellectual
structure (Our discussions of the MOQ can only occur (the social level
structure notwithstanding) when ideas have a framework that allows their
reproduction and negotiation over time-- fascism being the active
repression of this).
My answer, as I see it now, was a response to the question: what is
"social" freedom? What keeps this answer from reverting to hedonism is the
static latching that occurs on the social level. From this perspective,
threats to the social layer by actions of biological "freedoms" are indeed
"harmful" to the freedoms of others. That is to say, that society has every
right (as Pirsig indicates) to protect itself from being destroyed by a
lower level. Restated, if my actions (participating in said flow
activities) threaten the framework by which your social freedoms are
derived, then they are "harmful" and I lose my "social freedom" to engage
in that activity.
That said, let me respond to some specific quotes you provided from the
Copleston annotations on Anthony McWatt's website:
>"The MOQ supports intellectual freedom from the state but not biological
>freedom."
This is (mostly) where the above thoughts derive. This is, I think, what
makes a question like "what is personal freedom?" difficult, and perhaps a
little misleading. Many people, I'm sure, would equate "personal freedom"
with "biological freedom" (hedonism). I think I conceptually place the term
"personal freedom" into the "social freedom" category because of my
readings on agency and structure (Bourdieu, Giddens, etc), and it seems to
imply a concept of "my actions". Freedom (with a capital "F") is normally
what I would consider "Intellectual Freedom". Thus, I would (before you
started me thinking on this) have answered the question "What is Freedom?"
differently than "what is personal freedom?". This isn't really that
relevant, I'm just explaining where I was coming from.
>"Freedom and order are contradictory but both are necessary at the same time."
Anthony Giddens is an interesting read on this theme, with the concept of
"structuration" being more "personal" (not Gidden's word) rather than a
static-latch that structurates all activity in a society evenly (not that
the MOQ necessarily implies this). However, the idea that structure (order)
and agency (freedom) are interactive and not separable seems to be an area
of agreement. In Gidden's terms, "structures are enabling".
>I noticed you answered my second question to you but neglected the first:
>Freedom from what? From what I understand, suffering is what we seek
>freedom from. From LILA'S CHILD:
>
>"Dan Glover: Are suffering and freedom somehow related?
>
>Robert Pirsig: Yes. If you're not suffering from anything there's no need
>to be free."
I think I may disagree with the phrasing here. I would say instead, "if
you're not suffering from anything you have not conception of freedom".
I would answer this, now, as "freedom *from* regression to lower levels".
"Social freedoms" are freedoms from a state of affairs that would exist if
biological freedoms created a static collapse on the social level (freedom
from hedonism). Intellectual freedoms are freedoms from a state of affairs
that would exist if social freedoms created a static collapse on the
intellectual level (freedom from fascism).
Similarly, "biological freedoms" are freedoms from a state of affairs that
would exist if inorganic freedoms created a static collapse on the
biological level.
>Now taking this last into consideration as we look at the original
>question: what is personal freedom? I think we can state that it is
>suffering that drives our need to be free, even the need for intellectual
>freedom,
Indeed, the social level emerged to overcome biological suffering.
Intellectual emerged to overcome social suffering. Biological to overcome
inorganic...
>for "Zen argues that it is through stillness, not action, that a man can
>realize himself, in the sense of actualizing his potentialities and
>developing his personality towards the ideal state of harmonious
>integration of his powers." (Robert Pirsig from the Copleston annotations)
Thanks for the ongoing comments and ideas that are helping me shape my
thoughts.... I'm going to try to look into this more.
Arlo
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 : Wed Jul 21 2004 - 05:56:23 BST