3WD and MF
Thanks for the summary. I think you got all the essential points. I
particularly agree that the extent to which Indians inspired the idea of
individual freedom in Americans is, in any case, somewhat beside the point
because his whole concept of freedom later expands to mean something far
more fundamental. I initially thought the Indian vs European debate was a
red herring for precisely this reason. However when that section is
understood as part of the evolution of Pirsig's theory it makes more sense.
I still think it's a bit muddled though and it takes some rather subtle
reasoning to sort it out. However obviously this position is correct
because I got 98% in a reading comprehension test at college and I say so,
just kidding, ... it's because if the later evolution of the freedom idea
is not understood then Pirsig would appear to be saying that Americans
invented Dynamic Quality. But of course that is nonsense. Not only are all
the world's religions based around the idea, but even trees and rocks and
cells respond to Dynamic Quality. The newborn baby looks at its hand in
wonder ...
Diana
>
>Since I suggested this thread I'll attempt a wrap-up even though it will
>undoubtedly miss points
>some will feel are essential.
>
>All agree that the conflict [between European and Indian values] was
>Pirsig's jumping off point
>into, " Phaedrus' studies [of the] conflict between FREEDOM and order."
>And that study continues
>
>examples of both to the end of Lila when Phaedrus three pages from the end
>says: " Ahhhh!"
>He threw out his arms." FREE !"
>
>We disagree, however, on his claims as to just how European and Indian
>values melded into American
>
>values of freedom and order with the majority feeling he overstated the
>Indian case. But this issue
>
>is not central to his argument, for as his studies evolve the combination
>of the "brujo" event
>coupled with "Sidis" event shifts his focus and the ZaMM " inquiry into
>quality" resurfaces, is
>expanded to include an "inquiry into morals", and shortly after the
>Metaphysics of Quality emerges
>.
> What can confuse is the rhetorical presentation of the argument which
>introduces theMoQ on page 27
>
>in the "here and now" present of the boat trip and then a great deal of
>the rest of the book is
>spent showing how, when, and why it developed as it did.
>
>Bo put it this way:
>> Freedom (vs order) was P's initial motive when he planned to write
>> the Indian anthropological book, but as the MOQ wasn't invented
>> yet the DQ/SQ dichotomy has no bearing on that stage. Later
>> when he despaired on that task and took up the metaphysical
>> challenge again, freedom became the essence of the dynamic half
>> of his dynamic/static dualism.
>
>Which is summed up in this RMP quote:
>"Dynamic quality, the Quality of FREEDOM, creates this world in which we
>live" Lila-pp 121
>
>But Dynamic quality , according to Pirsig, is undefinable which in the
>end, under the MoQ, leaves
>freedom also undefinable. So as Diana and Horse quickly pointed out in
>their early posts what we
>
>often think of as "freedom" in essense are "rules of order", static
>patterns, or as Pirsig put i
>t
>"When they call it FREEDOM, that's not right. "FREEDOM"doesn't mean
>anything. [this type of ]
>FREEDOM'S just an escape from something negative." p220
>
>This seems to throw us into Plato's "paradox of freedom" or as Karl
>Popper argues in "The Paradoxe
>s
>of Sovereignty" we are lead to the conclusion that " all theories of
>sovereignty [social and
>particularly political orders] are paradoxical" But the question still
>remains: How does one
>establish, maintain, promote any order which maximizes freedom? Based on
>the premise:
>
>"But to the extent that one follow Dynamic Quality which is undefinable,
>one's behavior is FREE." p
>156
>
>Or alternatively John Doherty's description:
>
>>It's not Freedom from any one thing. It's simply letting your soul
>>express it's genuine destiny.
>
>While embracing the undefined, ineffable, yes mystic nature of Dynamic
>Quality and experience: the
>
>starting point must also be to acknowledge:
>
>"Although Dynamic quality, the Quality of FREEDOM, creates this world in
>which we live, these
>patterns of static quality, the quality of ORDER, preserve our world.
>Neither static or Dynamic
>Quality can survive without the other." Lila-pp 121
>
>And maybe as Popper suggests:
>
>"The theory I have in mind is one which does not proceed, as it were, from
>the doctrine of the
>intrinsic goodness or righteousness of majority rule, but rather from the
>baseness of tyranny; or
>more precesely, it rests upon the decision, or upon the adoption of the
>proposal, to avoid and
>resist tyranny."
>
>Now what the MoQ does is expand the nature of order and freedom to cover
>not just the social,
>political, and intellectual arenas but to the whole of existence and
>experience. So possibly an
>approach that is feasible is to focus as the song says "on eliminating
>the negatives" the tyranny,
>
>from all our static patterns thus helping goodness prevail.
>
>3WD
>
>PS [Bo] The man allegedly was a Summer called Avram , or in latter day
>Christian lingo- Abraham.
>
>Father of the original Jews, and over time Christians, and Muslims. But
>that whole post is likely
>just a sketch of ancient static patterns or orders. Interesting, but to a
>large degree relevant on
>ly
>from tracing where we've been and possibily, to some limited degree, in
>suggesting where we're are
>
>going .
>------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>
>MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST