[MD] Creative Freedom

[david buchanan]

Dan said to dmb:
I took a minute to look up the definition of freedom: 1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. So I have to ask... why do we need negative as a qualifier here?


dmb says:

Why do we need "negative" as a qualifier for "freedom"? Well, I'm sure we could use other terms to express the same idea. We don't really NEED it in that sense. BUT I think it's perfectly legitimate to examine what Pirsig is saying when he uses the term. That's all I'm really trying to get at. Is there any reason why we should not explore the meaning of the quotes wherein Pirsig uses the term "negative" in relation to "freedom"? I really don't understand your resistance on this point.
"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."
"The hippies had in mind something that they wanted, and were calling it "freedom," but in the final analysis "freedom" is a purely NEGATIVE goal."


Dan replied:
Robert Pirsig clearly says this is NOT right. That is why (I presume) he uses the quotes around "freedom" in both cases. "Freedom" doesn't mean anything. They called it "freedom" but that WAS NOT RIGHT! The hippies vision of "freedom" only led to their own demise.

dmb says:
Yes, that's exactly my point about negative freedom. Yes, he puts scare quotes around this negative "freedom" because it doesn't really live up to the name and he wants to contrast it with real freedom, with positive freedom, with Dynamic freedom. They call it "freedom", but it's really just an escape from something negative. It's just freedom FROM static patterns, as opposed to the positive freedom that comes from mastering those static patterns. In these quotes, we can all see that Pirsig does indeed talk about he dangers of NEGATIVE freedom, of merely rejecting or escaping from static patterns.

Dan replied:
No, "we" don't all see that. You might. If he meant freedom to be negative, why did he use quotes around it? Can't you see he is pointing at a very subtle nuance here? The hippies THOUGHT it was "freedom" they were pursuing. But instead they were only moving in the direction of biological quality, not toward Dynamic freedom.

dmb says:
If he meant freedom to be negative? Huh? No, obviously he is portraying negative freedom as very inferior to positive freedom and this is whole my point. We want to understand the difference between these two kinds of freedom because one is degenerate and the other serves creativity and the evolutionary process. 

dmb had said:
..., especially in relation to his central metaphor (the artful mechanic). He is talking about positive freedom even if doesn't use that particular term for it.

Dan replied:
Ah. So he didn't use the term. But he is talking about positive freedom? Isn't he smart enough to know he should be using that term? He never thought about it? Is that what you are saying?

dmb says:
No, I'm just saying that we, as readers, should be able to see the idea even though it is expressed using various terms. The same basic CONCEPT can be represented with lots of different words. There is wealth, coin, cash, funds, assets, net worth, dough, bucks, bank, and lots of other words for money. It would be far too restrictive to insist that Pirsig couldn't be talking about "positive" freedom unless he uses that particular term for it. Why would anyone want to be so inflexible as a reader and a thinker? 

Dan said:
Shutting down YOUR attempt at discussing the intellect! Kind of full of ourselves, aren't we Dave? Last time I checked it takes two people to discuss something. And if I am not mistaken, me and David H. were doing quite well on our own. You came into the discussion and made an erroneous statement and I called you on it. And you cannot defend yourself other than attempting to shift YOUR discussion to anti-intellectualism.

dmb says:
Anti-intellectualism was the point of this discussion from the very beginning. I've been trying to explain that anti-intellectualism is a form of negative freedom, that it is degenerate and worthy of condemnation. I'm still trying to make the same point about freedom. I have not shifted the topic. As far as a defense goes, I've posted dozens of quotes that support my claim and, in some cases, offered explanations as to how they support my claim. Apparently, you don't see the connections between the text and my claims about it. This saddens and frustrates me. What's worse are the insults, the anger and resentment (and even the suggestion of violence) that you've expresses in response to my efforts. Is this what I should expect anytime I dare to suggest that you might be wrong about something? 

I don't how many times I've posted on this particular point but I can tell you that, yes, I've been trying to correct you. I think you're making a mistake. I've been trying to explain WHY it's a mistake and why it's IMPORTANT to avoid this mistake. Being corrected is kinda hard on the old ego and so I began with a personal plea not to get upset by this correction. Sadly, I think you still don't understand what I'm saying, you remain uncorrected and you're also reacting like an uncivilized child. It's very uncool, Dan, and very disappointing. 




Yes, it takes at least two people to have a proper discussion.