[MD] Freedom within structure.

[Dan Glover]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> HI dmb, all,
>
>
>> From the NY Times interview:
>> "To the extent that you perceive dynamic quality, you make your own life," Mr. Pirsig suggested, "and to the extent you cling to static quality, you are the victim of fate. But dynamic quality is disruptive and I have been moved increasingly to appreciate the merits of the static. I'm becoming less radical, coming round to old institutions and finding within them tremendous dynamic value. The key is to see the dynamic within the static."
>>
>> From Lila:
>> "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
>>
>>
>> dmb says:
>> If Pirsig can reject the Cartesian self or SOM's self and STILL say that one's behavior is free to some extent, then why can't we?
>
> Steve:
> Sure, one can _say_ it, but is it true, and what does it even mean to say so?
>
> I noticed that quote too when I read the NY Times article, and I was
> struck by the fact that he doesn't talk about choice but rather
> perception.
>
> dmb:
> I mean, don't the Pirsig quotes prove that the question of free will
> can be answered without committing yourself to the metaphysical
> framework we've already rejected? The question of freedom is still a
> question about you and your life, don't you think?
>
>
> Steve:
> Well now you slipped free _will_ into this picture where Pirsig talked
> behavior and perception rather than _will_ being free.
>
> I can't make much of his claim "To the extent that you perceive
> dynamic quality, you make your own life." To what extent _do_ we
> perceive dynamic quality?

Dan:

To the extent that we put static patterns to sleep by learning to
ignore them. Meditation is one possible path.

>How could we behave so as to perceive more
> or less of it?

By doing what we love versus doing what we are told.

>If dynamic quality is the leading edge of experience,
> how does anyone _not_ perceive it?

By covering "it" up. By intellectualizing "it" away.

>Why does he see perception rather
> than will as the key to human freedom where most philosophers of the
> past have been concerned with a particular sort of the capacity to
> choose?

Perception is Dynamic. Will is seen as an illusion in the MOQ.

> Unfortunately, rather than shed light one the matter, for me
> this quote just muddles things further.

You think too much.