>From LILA's CHILD by Dan Glover:
RMP Annotation 29
The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a self that
is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns.
There is no self that contains these patterns. These patterns contain
the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and
scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to big self and
small self Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality.
DG:
So the MOQ might say we invent the self and then believe in our
own invention.
RMP:
Or better, the big self invents intellectual patterns that invent the
small self and that collection of small selves known as we.
DG:
Why?
RMP:
The question, Why? is always an intellectual question. It is
always part of the static patterns of the small self. Any intellectual
answer it gets will by necessity also be a part of the static patterns of
the small self. Since the big self cannot be contained by small-self
patterns, there is no intellectual, patterned answer to Why? A lot of
the enigmatic unpatterned nature of Zen results from teachers trying
to give non-intellectual, non-patterned answers to Why? That is,
they are trying to give, as an answer, the big self itself, which
surpasses all questions and is the only correct answer that can be
given.
DG:
I recently heard an interview with a sculptor who claimed one of
the criteria for what he considered to be real art would be that it is
functionally useless. For instance, though buildings are frequently
called works of art, they are functional and therefore not art at all.
Real art is about the changing of perception, not functional
conveniences like indoor plumbing and electricity. In other words, a
piece of art is not limited to the functionality of the object in
question but rather subject and object blur into each other. In Lila,
Phædrus mentions something about a fourth Dynamic morality
which isnt a code. He supposed you could call it a code of art or
something like that
as if this Dynamic morality had no real
function to speak of. Is big self functionally useless like art?
RMP:
I used to travel with art people who were always arguing matters
of this sort. The MOQ says art is high quality conduct and leaves it at
that. Since quality can be recognized but not defined there are no
definitions of what is and what is not art, including functionality.
Hence the title of ZMM.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
