[MD] Freewill

[Horse]

Hi David

My point - as Steve has already posted - was in relation to free will 
and choice etc.
So choosing another's creation (a piece of recorded music) is choosing a 
pre-existing pattern - i.e. static pov - and is not following DQ in the 
sense that I was referring to.
Choosing high quality instances of art, even if of the highest quality, 
is still choosing SQ. Creating your own art is following or choosing DQ.
So I don't see how Pirsigs example is incorrect in this context as it 
refers to an entirely different context and analogy.

Horse



On 03/08/2011 19:05, David Thomas wrote:
> On 8/3/11 12:07 PM, "Steven Peterson"<peterson.steve at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, David Thomas
>> <combinedefforts at earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>> On 8/3/11 8:14 AM, "Horse"<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we choose not to
>>>> prefer an existing pattern and instead opt for a new pattern of our own
>>>> creation then we are following DQ. Opting for another's creation is
>>>> certainly not following DQ.
>>> Dave,
>>> Remember the passage about hearing a new song on the radio being indicative
>>> of DQ?
>>> Doesn't that put the kibosh on your last statement? Or was RMP was mistaken?
>>> Oh I know, it's only an analogy.
>> Steve:
>> I didn't take that to be what Horse was saying. With respect to
>> listening to music, it is more like the absurdity of deciding whether
>> to play song A over song B on your iPod at a given moment because song
>> A is somehow the more _dynamic_ and therefore _free_ option.
>> Horse
>> Recognising the Quality in what someone else has created and adopting it
>> as your own are two completely different animals.
>> So no, I would consider my statement correct and unkiboshed!
>
> Dave
> I was referring to this:
> --------------
> Lila -Pg 57
> He found an example within the field of music. He said, imagine that you
> walk down a street past, say, a car where someone has the radio on and it
> plays a tune you've never heard before but which is so fantastically good it
> just stops you in your tracks. You listen until it's done. Days later you
> remember exactly what that street looked like when you heard that music.
> ....
>   same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that
> exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first
> good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic
> Quality comes as a sort of surprise. What the record did was weaken for a
> moment your existing static patterns in such a way that the Dynamic Quality
> all around you shone through. It was free, without static forms. The second
> good, the kind that made you want to recommend it to a friend, even when you
> had lost your own enthusiasm for it, is static quality. Static quality is
> what you normally expect.
> -------------
> Steve recently equated DQ to someone "groov'n on the drums"  and this seems
> to square with Horse's take. But as you both can see in this quote that is
> not what Pirsig said.. We all know that long before anybody heard that
> recorded (and therefore completely static) song on the radio it went through
> a long chain of "static" steps (writing,recording,distribution,playing, to
> name just a few) from the original dynamic creation by the artist just
> groov'n on the drums.
>
> So your take, Horse may well be unkiboshed, but it is also unPirsiged.
> Or Pirsig is inconsistent in his analogies. Which was my point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa