Diana, Wavedave and Foci
Diana wrote on Tuesday 4 April:
> Bo wrote
> >Dynamic quality is at the bottom, or top or surrounding, as the
> >driving force behind the evolution. I don't really see this as an
> >inconsistency in the MOQ.
> If you look at 3wd's quotes, most of the time Pirsig talks of freedom
> in itself as being a dynamic escape from whatever it is that is
> oppressing you - whether its social, biological or intellectual. But
> with Indians freedom is limited to escape from social order and that's
> what I think is misleading.
It seems we have no disagreement here. That goes for the
Huckleberry allusion also - which I did not quite catch in the
previous note :-). Thre's one point however I would like to discuss.
You wrote:
> But in the Indian vs European section he's talking about freedom
> from a specific static pattern, namely the social level. I think
> that makes it seem as if all freedom is anything that isn't a social
> pattern, which is completely wrong. Dynamic Quality seeks freedom
> from all restraints, not just social restraints.
Perhaps it's useful not always invoke the interlevel struggle,
conflicts (various forms of course) are legio within any moral level.
Animals reside on the biological level where the general values are
to eat and reproduce, but food is often other animals. Due to this
there's developed complicated rituals between the hunted and
hunter that regulates their co-habitation: Interbiological order, not
any social value infringement from above.
On the social level the conflicts between social entities and the
resulting rituals flourish. In central Europe at the colonial time
intellectual value (democracy, human rights..etc) had started to be
felt, but mostly immersed in the social reality. Wars of dominance
were fought among the countries and if the beaten part displayed
the correct subordination signals (diplomatic), they were left
unmolested - as countries. The Native Americans surely had their
inter-social-entities conflicts and rituals too but the continent was
vast compared to Europe and had only reached the tribal stage.
The plains nomades had never encountered any territorial
restrictions and the settled agriculture-based life so highly valued
by the immigrants seemed like oppression to them.
By this line of reasoning I hope to have reconciled Diana's:
> But in the Indian vs European section he's talking about freedom from
> a specific static pattern, namely the social level. I think that makes
> it seem as if all freedom is anything that isn't a social pattern,
> which is completely wrong. Dynamic Quality seeks freedom from all
> restraints, not just social restraints.
and Wavedave's:
> Phaedrus seem to be saying that by and large the Europeans valued
> order more highly than freedom the Indians the reverse
The Europeans knew the social order of their origin where land -
deed-owned land - meant freedom and the Indian lifestyle looked
like poverty. The mighty status carrier, money, had not been
developed there, its impact upon human societies can hardly be
over-estimated .
Have I succeded or complicated the freedom issue further? I am
down with a flu and a bit feverish so I can always blame that.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST