[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:09 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>>> In some ways.  However, I think there are actually two destinations of the same type.   Both types are important.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Okay. But doesn't RMP equate Dynamic Quality and freedom? I understand
>> social freedom can be found by either moving towards biological
>> patterns or towards intellectual patterns but neither is true freedom.
>> You are only replacing one jail cell for another. Admittedly, moving
>> towards intellectual freedom is a better choice than moving toward
>> biological freedom but neither are free of all patterns.
>
> Well he actually doesn't equate Dynamic Quality and freedom.  He says they are similar but not the same thing:
>
> "The experience of freedom and the experience of Dynamic Quality are similar although it’s important not to carry that analogy too far. Freedom always occurs as a negation of some static pattern." - LC
>
> The Freedom we know in the West is to the negation of static quality, away from patterns. Inevitably what this means is usually replacing those patterns with some other patterns but that is not what is meant by Freedom.  The 'Freedom' found more commonly in the East is found not to the negation of patterns but through mastery of them.

Dan:
Yes this is a good point. I think the sentence you left off might be
important here:

"Dynamic Quality is affirmative."

When I queried him on this Robert Pirsig answered:

"Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not
a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial
definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic
Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static
pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best
answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient
Vedic one——“Not this, not that.”

Dan comments:
I take this to mean that Dynamic Quality is free of any pattern. If
that is so then we cannot juxtaposition static quality freedom against
Dynamic Quality freedom in any meaningful way. I wonder how that
stacks up against statements like this from LILA:

"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the
source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the
moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no
pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is
freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any
pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the
ongoing free force of life."

"Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they
demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static
patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to
protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. 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 nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."

Dan comments:
Here it is clear that Dynamic Quality is to be seen as the Quality of
freedom while static quality is the quality of order. Since neither
can survive without the other we cannot negate the one without also
negating the other.

It seems to me that by mastering static patterns and putting them to
sleep they are being negated. Wouldn't you agree?


>
>>> My hypothetical example of whether we ought to drop a bomb was perhaps not a good one.  There's too many variables at play -  if pigs could fly how high could they fly?
>>
>> Dan:
>> Perhaps. My point was that as long as we follow the dictates of static
>> quality, which in the case of a soldier is to follow orders, then we
>> are without choice. A good soldier follows orders. That's what makes a
>> good soldier. If every soldier questioned their orders how on earth
>> could wars be fought?
>
> I don't deny this.  There is indeed little social freedom like this in the military or any other social organisation which relies heavily on authority. If a soldier chose not to follow orders then they would be disciplined.  I used the example of the military to show that although there is little freedom and we assume there is little freedom - there always is freedom.  It was a bad example for the reason that we can easily get caught up in a question of what makes a good soldier..

Dan:
But in truth if every soldier questioned orders war would come to an end.

>
>> David H:
>>> My original point however still stands.   That is that it's good to find a balance between the freedom found in the East and West respectively as they each have their own risks.  If we are always concerned with mastering patterns without regard for our own individual choice to master something else, then such an outlook comes with consequences.  Another example would be working for a criminal. If we simply do not question our work for that criminal and seek to master the patterns related to working for that criminal then this of course has bad consequences..  But if we simply choose to do something else all the time - then this results in chaos.  This is why a balance is important between the two types.  Such a balance can be found by mastering the best patterns we can..
>>
>> Dan:
>> What makes a good criminal? Can't a criminal become a master at their
>> craft? And if they do, are they a good criminal? Chicago politics is a
>> prime example. A good politician from Chicago is adept at covering
>> their crimes and becomes Mayor or hell maybe even President. A poor
>> politician from Chicago is arrested for taking bribes and extorting
>> moneys from people and is sent to prison.
>
> If that's your definition of a 'good politician' then that is so.  But I disagree that a good politician is adept at covering up their crimes.  Certainly a successful politician might be adept at covering their crimes but just because they are successful does that mean they are good? These are questions of static quality.  About a choice of some such a static quality over another.  There is free will in this choice but this is not freedom.  Freedom is the choice to not do something.  This is the type of freedom we commonly find in the West, your right - not so much in the military, but certainly in West and it's value of democracy...

Dan:
My point was how do we know when we are working for a criminal? I
chose Chicago politics because of the history of Chicago politics. It
isn't my definition. Do some reading if you don't believe me. You are
talking as if we have a choice in following static patterns. I am
saying as long as we follow static patterns there is no choice. A good
soldier follows orders. A good politician seeks votes. If either of
them do not do as required they will not be soldiers or politicians
for long. The goodness of each lies in the social value of soldiers
and politicians, not in some idealized sense of goodness apart and
separate.

Freedom as a choice not to do something is a negation of static
quality, is it not? So it is free will but not freedom? I grow
confused...

>
>>> No.  Enlightenment and indeed Buddhism can be mistaken for some kind of nihilism. Or this kind of 'such is life' kind of attitude.  "Life is suffering" - such is life.   But that's not enlightenment.  Enlightenment isn't about going off into a cave and removing oneself entirely from society forever.  Nor is it about how life is suffering and that's really bad - end of story.  It's about working through that suffering and seeing that this suffering is only provisional. And see, the Dynamic Quality which is the source of all this suffering…   Perhaps if I draw I diagram…
>>>
>>> sq --> DQ (180 degrees enlightenment - insight that there is more to life than 'everyday affairs')
>>>
>>> DQ --> sq (360 degrees enlightenment - taking this insight and applying back to sq in search of perfection(never-ending))
>>>
>>> Once one has gone off to a cave and experienced 180 degrees enlightenment.  Then there is the long process of taking this insight and applying it back to our everyday lives in search of static quality perfection. Of course that never happens, as Pirsig points out, there's no such thing as a perfect system.  But we're alive and we cannot help but make these static quality distinctions so we might as well try and get these distinctions as good as we can.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Ah. You are mistaking non-action for nihilism. The world is full of
>> action so I can see how you could connect the two but that isn't quite
>> right. By not interfering the world unfolds of its own accord. By
>> trying nothing is ever done; by not-trying everything is complete. I
>> could go on but perhaps you get the gist of what I am saying…
>
> Yes - and this is the perspective of the Buddha.  So ultimately you're right.  I'm talking from the perspective of everyday affairs..  Where things can get better.  From the perspective of everyday affairs - things can be improved.  Goals can be set and achieved.

Dan:
Actually I am speaking from the perspective of everyday affairs. I
have no way of knowing the perspective of the Buddha.

>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Well, I think when we speak we are always speaking from the world of
>>>> everyday affairs. That doesn't preclude us from seeing Dynamic Quality
>>>> and experience as synonymous. Dynamic Quality isn't some mysterious
>>>> nothingness cloaked in obscurity. It is the cutting edge of
>>>> experience. We are always in touch with it just as we are always in
>>>> touch with static quality.
>>>>
>>>> We just have to wake up.
>>>
>>> Yes - words can always be turned into intellectual concepts and thus are not Dynamic Quality.  We can only ever speak using the language of everyday affairs.  That's why it's wise to say Dynamic Quality is 'not this, not that'.  It avoids, somewhat, the issue of someone turning those words into intellectual concepts.  But they still are intellectual concepts.  That's why Dynamic Quality is 'not this, not that' and not even the phrase 'not this, not that'.  And not even my previous sentence. Ad infinitum.  Words are static things and Dynamic Quality is not static.
>>>
>>> However,  does this mean we don't experience Dynamic Quality? Does this mean we cannot speak from this world of Dynamic Quality?  A world which is not intellectual distinction after intellectual distinction.  A world which a finger points at but is not the finger.  I think we can.  Regardless of how well or badly I'm doing it right now,  I've read things which do indeed point to this place and I've seen it alluded to many times.   These words might be static quality themselves but they point to a different place entirely.  So I disagree that we are always speaking from the world of everyday affairs.  Yes, we always use the language of everyday affairs to speak, but the place where we are speaking from could be two very different types of Quality.
>>
>> Dan:
>> To speak means to communicate to others. To communicate to others we
>> must share some commonality. We build up static quality patterns and
>> agree they are real. What comes before the speaking cannot be spoken.
>
> I agree it cannot be spoken. But we can allude to it by speaking.  You just did.  I just did previously.  We both are doing this now.   Are we not alluding to DQ? Furthermore - how would we be able to 'know' what Dynamic Quality was if we couldn't use the static quality symbol 'Dynamic Quality' to talk about it?  Yes we might 'know' what it is.  There are many people who I'm sure 'know' what Dynamic Quality is without knowing about the symbol Dynamic Quality.   So why do we give Dynamic Quality a name in the MOQ?  This act - of giving Dynamic Quality a fixed symbol- it's degeneracy, but it's intellectually valuable to do so.  This is a different value than the value of leaving things undefined.   This is what I mean when I say the place we are speaking from could be from two different places.   We can use words to allude to DQ.  Or we can use words to intellectually define one thing over another.   I see many a conflict on this discussion board because someone will be speaking from one type of quality and someone else will come along and think they are speaking from another.  The place we are talking from is important.. That is - what we value..

Dan:
The way I see it, we use words as representations of experience. We
use words to symbolically point at something that has already moved
on. That's all we can ever do when it comes to speaking or writing. We
cannot capture direct experience, or Dynamic Quality.

I see conflict arising here because we fill our cups with old tea. It
doesn't taste good but we refuse to pour it out because it is all we
have.

>
>>> Are you trying to speak to the value of some such a static quality? Yes. We are trying to make an intellectual distinction whether something is everyday or not.  So I would say what you've just written is from the world of everyday affairs.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Of course it is. That which comes before the intellect is called
>> Dynamic Quality but in name only. Once defined it is no longer Dynamic
>> Quality.
>
> Indeed. But it still stands for what it alludes to or what we are talking about would be meaningless.  There is a reason Pirsig used a symbol and words to describe DQ.    It's degeneracy yes, but there's not a person who hasn't defined things.  So we might as well intellectually define reality as good as we can. That includes dividing Quality into static quality and Dynamic Quality.

Dan:
Dynamic Quality is an intellectual term as is every word we write. We
always speak and write from the world of everyday affairs. To pretend
we can speak from the world of the Buddha is only that... pretense.

Dynamic Quality is meaningless. It is not this, not that. When we give
meaning to it Dynamic Quality is no longer Dynamic Quality. That's the
whole point of the hot stove experiment. Something gets us off the
stove but we don't know what it is until later.

>
>>> I don't think that people in the East are Buddhas.  They strive for things in a way that is similar to how the Buddha did hundreds of years ago. Regardless, if you don't think that people in the East are much different from people in the West in their philosophy and outlook on life then I suppose there's not much I can say..
>>
>> Dan:
>> I would say their cultural mores are perhaps different but we as human
>> beings all cherish similar things... things being the operative word
>> here.
>
> Indeed. Goods, values, morals- they're universal.  How we statically manifest our values however - is different.  How the East and West values Dynamic Quality - is different.   The West values Dynamic Quality through it's veneration of 'Freedom'. As Pirsig writes:
>
> "When they call it freedom, that's not right. 'Freedom' doesn't mean anything. Freedom's just an escape from something negative. The real reason it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean Dynamic Quality."
>
> But there is other way of achieving the same Dynamic Quality without this risk of chaos.  This is something the East has worked out…

Dan:
But what is freedom an escape to? Isn't that the question we should be
asking rather than what it is an escape from? If freedom is an escape
to something better, isn't that a response to Dynamic Quality?

>
>>> Yes, that's right.  In the language of the Buddha's world there is nothing but Dynamic Quality.   Aka 'experience isn't anything'.  As there is no intellectual division that governs his world.  But in the language of everyday life - intellectual distinctions are still important so we can say that Dynamic Quality and static quality are different things.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I don't think so. They are different terms not different things.
>
> They are both.  Ultimately, you're right.  Everything is Dynamic Quality. They are different terms and not different things.  It's all Dynamic Quality.  It is the source of all things.

Dan:
In the Metaphysics of Quality, everything is not Dynamic Quality. If
it was, it wouldn't be a metaphysics. I am not talking ultimately... I
am talking from the standpoint of the MOQ. I assume we all are, or at
least we should be since this is a forum dedicated to the MOQ.

David H:
>But here we are - talking about reality.  The best description of reality we have is called the Metaphysics of Quality.  It breaks up this ultimately undefined reality into Dynamic Quality and static quality.  Such a distinction is valuable statically.  It is statically valuable by the very nature in that it is a distinction.  You can only create a distinction between two static things. It's important to remind ourselves, as you have, that they aren't things.  And Dynamic Quality certainly isn't a 'thing'.  But however minute the distinction - Dynamic Quality has a name or a term. A name is a thing. Dynamic Quality isn't its name or it's term.  But we give it such to speak of it intellectually. Degeneracy. But unavoidable degeneracy.  If we neglect to recognise that these terms are still definitions then that is a degeneracy of another sort..  Pirsig talks about this in Lila:
>
> "But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."

Dan:
Yes, so to posit Dynamic Quality as everything is a show-stopper.
There is no way to define reality if everything is one. I think that's
what causes so much frustration when some contributors start yelping
about Dynamic Quality being the same as static quality. It doesn't
make metaphysical sense. And we are discussing a metaphysics.


>
> Thanks Dan,

My pleasure, David. Thank you too.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com