Moffers,
> "And as Phaedrus' studies got deeper and deeper
> he saw that it was to this
> conflict between European and Indian
> values, between freedom and order,
> that his study should be directed."
>
> Is this an accurate portrayal?
I think Pirsig's portrayal has the goal to give us an example of how the
DQ-SQ struggle operated in that crucial period between XVII and XX century.
If we believe in the simply equation "Europe = Social Order and America =
Intellectual Freedom" we make a big mistake, as I tried to point out in my
post last month about America and freedom.
In this sense Pirsig's portrayal is Good as rhetoric argument. But I think
no one (nor Pirsig) can say that this argument is Truth.
David B. wrote:
> Ancient Greek Democracy was different than our own.
> Their idea of a free person was a citizen who could
> vote on the laws that governed him. But those
> laws could regulate any area of life, there was
> no sense of "privacy" as think of it and in that sense their
> "democracy" was a totalitarian government.
>
If we look at that experience with our modern eyes, that was a totalitarian
government. But for that times it was really a great step beyond toward
(social) equality. Very different from other Greek situations (like Sparta)
and from all other western empires of that times (Macedonia, Egypt, Persia,
Rome and so on...). I hope that in 2500 AD they will look back to our
"democratic" constitutions with the same eyes we use today looking at
ancient Athens.
David B again:
> "Man is born free, yet everywhere he is
> in chains". Natural Rights? Man in the state of nature? Where do you
> suppose they got such notions? The noble savage and the new world.
Well, my opinion about the "Noble Savage" topic is that usually people read
in an example what they want to read. The Enlightenment thinkers assumed
that point of view about American Indians just 'cause they were looking for
good examples supporting their ideas. They had also different examples from
America: Incas, Mayas and so on, but they rejected all that as they wanted
only examples of a sort of a natural freedom. I think that the Enlightenment
would have been the same (or very similar) even without the Indians.
> But more importantly just what is freedom?
>
> How does the MoQ provide for it?
>
> How it the same, different, than other philosophies?
>
> In other words, what are the qualities of freedom?
>
I want to give a more general answer to the question "What is freedom?"
starting from Diana's words:
> The enemy of freedom is oppression, not order.
> One person's freedom is another's oppression
> and often the solution to that is some kind of
> order, eg a non-smoking area in a restaurant.
> That's an increase in order and an
> increase in freedom at the same time. I don't think
> it makes sense to talk about freedom and order
> as if they were opposites. The opposite of order is
> disorder, but disorder isn't the same as freedom, disorder
> can be one of the most oppressive states of all.
>
Good point. It's a mistake to assume order as opposite of freedom. My
opinion is that it's a mistake also a simple identification of freedom with
DQ or of order with SQ.
Order and disorder are two opposite limits of static quality. Take the
famous slips of Phaedrus in Lila: this is order, I guess. He assumes a
method just to put all his (static) disordered intellectual patterns in
order. What's the goal of order? To get empty SPACE (in that case the
intellectual space for the metaphysics of quality). We all need an empty
space if we want to make something new. Empty space is a necessary condition
for DQ. (Remember Andrew's: "Empty is Dynamic space and full is static
space.")
On the other side freedom and anarchy are two opposite limits of dynamic
quality achieving. When you create order using a good method, and use the
new space you created, that's freedom. When you destroy or abandon all
static patterns to create space that's anarchy.
Bo wrote:
> Marco, [...] I had expected you to suggest
> "Time&Space" for an April topic - you and Andrew and Ryan had
> some good inputs there
>
Well, definitely I think that talking about freedom is also talking about
space.
Order is a necessary condition for empty space. Order is a necessary
condition for freedom.
Extending this point to all the evolution of universe seen through MOQ
glasses, I try this:
There are four kinds of static patterns (Inorganic, Biological, Social,
Intellectual), and four typical environments for their activity (Universe,
Biosphere, Economy, Public opinion). Every pattern is aware of his typical
environment and of environments below; and is not able to see the upper
ones. Every pattern tries to fill its typical environment, using lower
patterns as resource, limiting the activity of similar patterns. This
progressive filling conditions a progressive difficulty of activity and a
sort of "sense of oppression"; and definitely a need of empty space.
Freedom is that need. In this sense freedom is a natural property of every
pattern. It's latent in presence of empty space, and becomes evident when
the space is full. So it's stupid to argue if Indians or Europeans or
Martians invented freedom: the expansion of universe is freedom; the weed
invading my garden is freedom... and so on.
Freedom is everywhere.
Definitely, the value of freedom resides in the fact that only through
freedom we can create the necessary space for evolution.
David B. :
> Europe's all filled up with history. There's less space in Europe than
> there
> is in the Hudson River valley of New York.
>
Europeans invaded America just for all that space. They wanted just to be
free.
tks for your attention.
Marco.
------- 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