[MD] Freedom within structure.

[david buchanan]

>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."


Steve said:
I can't make much of his [Pirsig's] claim "To the extent that you perceive dynamic quality, you make your own life." To what extent _do_ we perceive dynamic quality? How could we behave so as to perceive more or less of it? If dynamic quality is the leading edge of experience, how does anyone _not_ perceive it?  ..Why does he [Pirsig] 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? Unfortunately, rather than shed light one the matter, for me this quote just muddles things further.


dmb says:


It shouldn't be surprising that the MOQ construes freedom differently from "most philosophers of the past". The MOQ deliberately breaks from that history, particularly by rejecting SOM (Modern philosophy) and taking the sides with the Sophists against Plato and Aristotle (Ancient philosophy). The classic dilemma of determinism - how can one be free in a universe governed by causal laws? - doesn't come up because the MOQ does not subscribe to the idea that the universe is governed by causal laws. I mean, the question of freedom is still about you and your life but it is asked and answered from within an entirely different universe, so to speak. That universe, which includes you, is conceived as static and Dynamic Quality in process, not a law-like machine.

As a result, freedom is going to be more like a skill or a sensitivity, not a capacity in the sense of a Kantian "faculty". The capacity or ability to perceive DQ is not going to be associated with any particular sense organ nor is it located in any particular part of the brain. Pirsig says it's not just something you're born with, although you ARE born with it. It's something that can be developed, tuned up and educated. Both books are all about getting so attuned. You know, in ZAMM we get the artful mechanic and the lessons in seeing freshly, while in Lila we get the interpersonal relations as well as political and cultural relations. They're about how to deal with "the system", how to beat it, how not to be a slave or a mule but a free person instead, as Pirsig puts it.

"Perception" is the point of the hot stove example. Pirsig is trying to demystify DQ by painting such an ordinary scenario. He says DQ is not some crypto-religious metaphysical abstraction but an empirical reality. He says the mystics will be the first to get off the stove precisely because they tend to get less confused with a lot of abstract ideas and instead has become more attuned to empirical reality as such. Likewise, it isn't enough for the artful mechanic to understand the underlying rational forms. He also needs to care, has to have a feel for the materials, for the tools and he even has to identify himself with the task, if not the machine. We're talking about a sensitivity to aesthetics even in the realm of grease monkeys and kitchen equipment and yet it applies to philosophy and to the living of your life just as well. Following DQ is about coming down from the world of abstractions and principles and returning to the immediate flux of life, to direct everyday experience. As Martha Nussbaum puts it, "fine attention and good deliberation require a highly complex, nuanced perception of, and emotional response to, the concrete features of one's own context, including particular persons and relationships." (Granger, 11) If, as Pirsig puts it, SOM means drinking life through a straw or chasing a mechanical rabbit, then the MOQ means guzzling life from a wide-mouthed quart-sized mason jar and it means following DQ in your own way. It means following your own dharma instead of simply obeying the rules and keeping your nose clean. 

".., the overall pragmatic orientation of ZMM and Lila effectively embodies Dewy's conviction that the proper aim of philosophy is not the creation of a logical system of thought, but rather the enhancement of the quality of life and experience through conscientious cultural or values criticism. Briefly, for now, this critical practice entails looking at how different values come into being and trying to discern which prized goods are truly valuable when we consider the conditions and consequences of pursuing them. Pirsig clearly takes such practice very seriously. His deliberate evasion of Western text-bound tradition of philosophizing act as a kind of emancipatory gesture, freeing his attentions from the conventional obligation to interpret and apply the works of his predecessors according to canonical precepts. Simply put, it gives his the space and opportunity to engage in the always-challenging work of open and honest inquiry - what Emerson praisefully calls 'Man Thinking.' ..Immaculately reasoned arguments and grand systems mean little if they have nothing to contribute to the art of a life well lived." (Granger, 16)


Or, as I like to say, Yes, the unexamined life is not worth living BUT the un-lived life isn't worth examining either.