From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:05:11 BST
Platt,
Just a quick question: Why is freedom in the MoQ a moral force? Would it
be wrong / worse to associate freedom with things both moral, and out of the
moral arena?
Just wondering
matt
P.S. to myself, I wonder if i'll get a reply
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD What have you freed lately?
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:00:32 -0400
>
>Hi Steve Peterson,
>
> > On Mar 30, 2004, at 4:35 PM, Platt Holden wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of realty, the
> > > source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the
>moral
> > > force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of
> > > fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and
>its
> > > only perceived evil is static quality itself—any pattern of one-sided
> > > fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of
> > > life." (Lila-9)
> > >
> > > Of all the passages in Lila, none is more significant than this one.
>It
> > > describes how Pirsig views the mysterious mystic force he calls
>Dynamic
> > > Quality. First, it is a force, an energy, drawing all creatures great
>and
> > > small towards betterness. Second, it created and continues to create
> > > everything new under the sun. Third, its highest good is freedom from
> > > static patterns.
> > >
> > > So I keep asking myself, "What have you freed from a static pattern
> > > lately?" Unfortunately I can only answer, "Nothing special."
> > >
> > > Perhaps in raising two children I’ve had a hand in freeing them from
>the
> > > static patterns of childhood dependency. That’s about it, but at least
> > > it’s something.
> > >
> > > What patterns have you broken? What have you set free? How have you
> > > responded to DQ? Is there a brujo among us?
> > >
> >
> > Pirsig had something else to say about freedom in his afterword to ZAMM:
> > "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. It just says something is bad. Hippies weren't really offering any
> > alternatives other than colorful short-term ones, and some of these were
> > looking more and more like pure degeneracy. Degeneracy can be fun but
>it's
> > hard to keep up as a serious lifetime occupation."
> >
> > DQ puts freedom in a positive light. The DQ/sq split suggests how we
>don't
> > necessarily have to speak in negative terms about freedom since freedom
>can
> > lead to dynamic improvement. We always knew that there was something
>good
> > about freedom. The MOQ helps us to articulate it.
> >
> > However, Pirsig's connection between degeneracy and freedom still
> > applies. Though from the DQ perspective all static patterns are evil,
> > there is no dynamic improvement without static latching as Leland
>pointed
> > out.
>
>The many examples I used of how individuals freed previously static
>patterns to create new static patterns were anything but degenerate. All
>of their dynamic improvements were latched and contributed to evolution.
>
> > I think this is where Mark's thinking about dynamic-static tension and
> > sq-sq coherence comes in. From each static level's perspective every
>other
> > level is evil as is DQ in it's ongoing assault on the stability of
>static
> > patterns. From the DQ perspective every static pattern is evil. It is
>only
> > from the Quality perspective that the two are reconciled in the whole of
> > the One. Freedom may be the highest good from the DQ perspective, but
>from
> > the Quality perspective, DQ is only one kind of Good that needs to be
> > integrated into a "sweet spot."
>
>Many individuals experience 'sweet spots' without changing static
>patterns. What counts are those, like the brujo in the Zuni story, who
>bring about a break in a generic and long standing static pattern
>affecting the course of evolution towards betterness.
>
> > Pirsig said "This book offers another, more serious alternative to
> > material success...It gives a positive goal to work toward that does
> > not confine." There is a positive goal (sweet spot) because of static
> > latching of betterness. Without the static latching, DQ could only be
> > understood in negative terms rather than in terms of betterness.
> >
> > Talking about DQ, freedom, and mystical experience alone without static
> > latching seems to me like the Hippie's talk in that it's not any real
> > alternative to static patterns since there is no way to be a living
>being
> > and be literally free of static patterns. It just doesn't make sense to
> > think of freedom from all static patterns as absolute good. Perhaps DQ,
> > freedom, and mystical experience perhaps can be fun but hard to keep up
>as
> > a serious lifetime occupations. I've never had a mystical experience, so
>I
> > don't know.
>
>Agree. Just having a lot of mystical experiences hardly qualifies as
>moving evolution forward.
>
> > Anyway, breaking static patterns does not necessarily increase freedom.
> > In fact, doing so can decrease freedom, so I think "what have you
> > freed?" needs to be clarified. Freeing a sick patient from germs is
> > good, but freeing your 13-year old from her curfew could be
> > catastrophic.
>
>I thought it was clear by the examples I cited that I was referring to
>breaking
>static patterns on the scale of the brujo rather than mundane day to day
>choices. My raising two children hardly qualifies, but I was grasping at
>straws.
>
> > If we want to talk about freedom as a positive as we Americans love to
>do,
> > we should be talking about freedom to flourish or something like Mark's
> > sweet spot rather than freedom from all static patterns. Instead of
>being
> > a negative, I would define MOQ informed freedom as the condition of
> > openness to dynamic improvement.
>
>Mere openness to dynamic improvement, while admirable, accomplishes little
>unless one takes action as a result to replace a ubiquitous static pattern
>with a better one offering more freedom.
>
> > Social conservatives can argue that society's laws help make us free
> > since we could not flourish as human beings without society. Liberal's
>can
> > talk about how to create the conditions for more people to flourish.
> > Perhaps the two groups could even find some common goals if they can
>begin
> > to see freedom in a positive light as the sweet spot in a DQ/sq
> > relationship.
>
>I don't buy the notion that freedom in the MOQ is a 'sweet spot.' Freedom
>in the MOQ is DQ, a moral force whose "only perceived good is freedom and
>its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided
>fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of
>life." (Lila, 9) But your reminder of the need for static latching and
>possibility of degeneracy is well taken.
>
>Best regards,
>Platt
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months
FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:08:09 BST