[MD] Creative Freedom

[David Harding]

Hi dmb,

> dmb said:
> One of the sources of confusion here is that you're both reading my claims as if I were talking about the mystic reality or Dynamic Quality itself - even though I keep telling that I'm not talking about mysticism or the ultimate reality. Obviously, we need to be on the same topic if we're going to understand each other. Please hear me and believe me. ...By switching the topic over to the mystic reality, you will certainly misunderstand what I'm saying.
> 
> David Harding replied:
> ...I have no disagreement with you on content, just the words that you are using.  In fact, it's just one word - positive.  I have an issue with associating 'Dynamic freedom' with 'positive freedom'.  However loosely you want to say that association is, Dynamic freedom is the freedom one experiences as a result of Dynamic Quality.  If you associate that freedom with something positive then you are logically associating Dynamic Quality with something positive.  ...To call that freedom 'positive freedom' is a huge misnomer because it associates Dynamic Quality with something positive. I only disagree with you on names not content.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> You are doing exactly what I asked you not to do. You are treating my comments as if I am talking about DQ itself. I'm not.

And as I explained, you cannot ignore the influence of Dynamic Quality on freedom.   This is why the terms positive and probably negative freedom is best avoided.  Can we not have a disagreement? 

> In Pirsig's example of jumping off the hot stove, for example, DQ is quite negative and so it is with the ameba that swims away from sulfuric acid. I'm not associating DQ with the "positive" because that simply not what I talking about AND even if I were talking about DQ I wouldn't make that claim. 

I disagree with the statement that DQ is quite negative when we jump off the hot stove..  The hot stove is low quality biologically… Jumping off the stove is a 'vague sense of he knows not what' aka. undefined betterness(DQ).  

And I explained how when we talk about freedom we cannot ignore the influence of Dynamic Quality to that freedom.  Remember, the MOQ is mysticism.   It's intellectual mysticism and it's fully aware of its contradiction in terms when it claims as much.  This is why Pirsig discovers that, more than just our traditional sense of freedom as an escape from something negative, there is also another type of freedom which can be found through mastery..

> The phrase "positive freedom" is not a name or label for DQ. And I'd happily give up that particular word ("positive") if I thought it would help to stop the confusion. The IDEA is what I want to get across, after all, and there are other terms to use in making this point, in making the distinction between mastery of static patterns (positive freedom) and escape or rejection of static patterns (negative freedom).  		 	   		  

I don't see that distinction actually so it seems there is actually more to our differences than the terms we use... Yes, we can experience DQ through mastery and call that Dynamic freedom, however normal, ordinary everyday freedom is not an escape or rejection of static patterns as a whole.  It is a rejection of *a particular set* of negative patterns.  

And before you misunderstand me here and say that this is not your point - I can see how you are tying 'negative freedom' with the mistake Marsha makes.   But I don't think that is the mistake she makes.  I think it's close to a good description but not quite..

Marsha does indeed reject patterns.. She's not interested in mastery of her ideas.. Marsha rejects the set of patterns called 'truth' and claims to be free of them.  But as we both know, freedom isn't just pretending that something doesn't exist.   True freedom is found not in a rejection of a particular set of patterns, it is found in the mastery of them so that they no longer exist…   If you reject the set of patterns called 'truth' which represents high quality ideas then naturally you are rejecting good ideas.   If you reject good ideas on a philosophy forum then that is pretty ugly.. That's what I think her mistake is - it's her de-emphasis of the value of truth.    

Now I can see a second possible objection that would say that Marsha appears to not care about static patterns as a whole, and that is why it's good to claim that she rejects them all.  But I don't think that it's as simple as that.  If she *truly* rejected static patterns as a whole then she would be *truly* free of them.   The only way to be *truly* free of all static patterns as a whole is through mastery of them.    This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes about Dynamic freedom..

"The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone."

And this is juxtaposed with what you call 'Negative freedom'.   "Freedom is just an escape from SOMETHING negative".    That's what ordinary everyday freedom is - an escape from something negative in particular.  Not, like Dynamic freedom, an escape from all patterns..   That's Marsha's mistake, she doesn't see the value in Dynamic freedom and mastery of one's ideas and the truth which results...

A final objection I can think of is how does Marsha's mystic relativism end up sounding as if she rejects all patterns, if that is not what she does? Because she doesn't value the distinctions made between ideas.  If you don't value truth then you aren't going to value any intellectual distinctions. 

Finally, as an aside - your frustrations with misunderstandings and disagreements here I find rather curious..  Of course we are going to have disagreements and struggle to explain our ideas so that others understand them.  This is what the MD is all about IMHO.  We are here to explain our understanding of the MOQ to others.  If someone's ideas are better than my own, I'll tell them.  If I don't think what they say explains my experience as good as it could I'll tell them.  Philosophy discussion is never easy. But I'd argue that through that struggle it's rewarding as well...  

If I have mischaracterised your argument here, or if you agree with what I've written all along, I'm sure I'll hear about it..

Thanks dmb,

-David.