> Dearest philosophers:
>
> Will you take a step back for a moment?
> Will you pause long enough to reconsider "free will" in light of the MOQ?
>
> It seems the discussion began with an outright rejection of Pirsig's
> answer on the issue. (He says the question doesn't really come up and then
> describes freedom in terms of the static/Dyanmic split. You all know the
> quote by heart, I'm sure.) But this answer was rejected without any real
> discussion of its meaning. No one really gave an explaination for their
> disagreement. It seems the traditional kinds of debates and issues about
> free will and "choice" make little sense in terms of the MOQ. I think
> Pirsig has an entirely different idea about the nature of freedom.
>
> I would like to challenge each and every member to provide thoughts about
> Pirsig's answer.
>
> Why doesn't it come up? How is choosing one static pattern over another
> NOT free?
>
> How does freedom of CHOICE square with DQ's undefinable and unpredictable
> nature?
>
> If we don't have a real conversation about the meaning of Pirsig's answer
> someone might accuse us of evasion and intellectual dishonesty. Wouldn't
> that be horrible?
>
> If we don't make a sincere effort to comprehend his answer, someone might
> accuse us of PRETENDING to reject it so as to cover up our confusion.
> Wouldn't that be embarrassing?
>
> It would be wrong to pose such a challenge and ask all these questions
> without also offering some thoughts on the topic, wouldn't it? I've got
> plenty of doubts and questions about Pirsig's answer, but its not entirely
> mysterious to me either....
>
> In terms of the MOQ, FREEDOM is associated with Dynamic Quality, as the
> rejected quote flatly states. In this case, choosing between static
> patterns does not necessarily imply freedom. DQ doesn't have to enter into
> such a "choice". Instead, the MOQ suggests that freedom entails going
> beyond static patterns, transcending them in a creative and evolutionary
> way.
>
> And this idea fits into the MOQ's overall evolutionary scheme. All the
> previous static patterns in all the of the levels have evolved through the
> same process. Static patterns preserve the fruits of evolution while
> Dynamic Quality creates new patterns. Preserve and transcend, preserve and
> transcend. That the whole game, and our "freedom" has to be understood in
> those terms. Freedom is a pretty radical notion in the MOQ. Its creative,
> evolutionary, revolutionary and anything but static.
> But, again, it fit into the overall scheme, where the universe evolves by
> way of DQ "effect" on the existing static patterns. Our freedom is
> consistent with and is a part of that evolutionary process.
>
> We are not free to the extent that we follow static patterns, but that
> doesn't mean its all bad. Static patterns seem like evil when they
> conflict with DQ and the evolutionary process, or even if they simply
> conflict with a higher level of pattterns, but they are absolutely
> necessary to the overall evolutionary process all the same. In fact, I
> think Pirsig's scheme implies that the creative and evoutionary force of
> DQ can only work its magic when and if the static patterns are first
> "mastered". This is related to the idea of putting the patterns to sleep
> through ritual, chop wood and carry water and all that. In other words,
> creativity depends on a certain level of excellence or at least full
> competence. We have to get up to speed before we can be at the cutting
> edge. Evolution depends on preservation. Conservation and trancendence,
> that's the song we all dance to, the dance of Lila.
>
> Pirsig provides plenty of examples of DQ at the social level;
> revolutionaries like the Zuni shaman, Lincoln, John Brown, Ghandi, Christ.
> His respect for the outsiders and contrarians who make changes is pretty
> obvious and we can see that these kinds of figures represent the "Quality
> Event" at the social level. This is a fascinating area to think about and
> I imagine we could spend a lot of time discussing it, but I want to keep
> to the topic of freedom.
>
> I'd like to offer a few ideas about evolution at the intellectual level...
> which seems to follow the same pattern, preserve and transcend, but is
> also the most fluid. It relies on a "base" of static patterns just like
> all the other levels, but it is more inclined to change than is any other
> level. It is the most dynamic because its the most highly evolved level,
> but mastery and skill are pre-requisites all the same. Creativity and
> transcendence don't come from sloppy incompetence. Evolution requires
> excellence and luck.
>
> Its not that we have to be perfect or know everything that there is to
> know. Only a fool and his mother could believe such a thing is posssible.
> But if we "decide" to believe untrue things or if we "choose" to hold
> unsupported views, where not talking about freedom. If we "prefer" our own
> definitions over those found in dictionaries and encyclopedia, we're not
> talking about Pirsig's many truths or anything that relates to the MOQ.
> We're just talking about a lack of skill, ignorance or insanity. We're
> just talking about intellectual incompetence.
>
> E=mc2. That is an intellectual pattern of quality based on lots of other
> patterns. We don't get to decide if its true or not. We don't get to
> decide what it means. Either you understand it or you don't. Its not a
> matter of free will because we're talking about static pattterns, which
> are specific and definable. Lots of folks who've more or less mastered the
> static intellectual patterns of science have looked at Einstein's equation
> to test its truth and it could hardly be considered a valid idea if it
> can't stand up to such scrutiny. Truth is a public thing in this sense. To
> have one's own personal private truth is insanity, by Pirsig's definition.
>
> Philosophy and metaphysics are the same way. The MOQ is the same way. You
> either get it or you don't. Discussing the MOQ, or any idea, requires a
> certain mastery of intellectual static patterns, even if, no, especially
> if, you wish to differ or disagree. This is just a fancy way to say we
> can't criticize things we don't know about, eh? Disagreement and
> misunderstanding are two completely different things.
>
> Thanks for your time - DMB
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
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 - 16:00:37 BST