[djh] To be clear - just because someone who goes crazy first pursues Dynamic Quality - doesn't mean that *everyone* who pursue's Dynamic Quality goes crazy.
[Arlo] I'm still unclear about two points, Dave. Point 1, let me first back up here to your original assertion (unless I misunderstood) that the difference between the Hippies and Lila, the difference that evidenced her being driven by Dynamic Quality, was "mental illness". If mental illness comes later, after the adoption of conflicting patterns, and its the rejection of cultural patterns that comes first, prior to mental illness, then how does Lila's 'mental illness' evidence her Dynamic Quality. In this context, wouldn't 'mental illness' evidence the point at which someone STOPS following Dynamic Quality? We have three groups in this discussion: the Hippies, Lila and Phaedrus. All three rejected the intellectual and social patterns of their culture. At that point, they are all equally moral in being driven by Dynamic Quality, no? The Hippies fell when their pursuit shifted towards biological quality. You say that Lila fell when she latched onto culturally conflicting patterns. Would you say the same about Phaedrus? Did his pursuit of Dynamic Quality end at the moment he had his mental breakdown? Point 2, you argue (if I understand) that conflict with cultural patterns does not appear at the point of rejection, only at the point of new patterns being adopted, and this may or may not happen depending on the new patterns being adopted. Can you give me an example where the rejection of a cultural value does not lead to conflict with that culture? At what point in Phaedrus' breakdown, for example, did this 'adoption of new patterns' occur, and how does this align with the 'moment of conflict' between Phaedrus and his culture? If I reject a cultural value, that (as I see it) by definition puts me into conflict with that culture. How can their be a sort of limbo state between rejecting cultural values and re-adopting new ones that keeps the person out of conflict? Also, if I reject a cultural value, and instead adhere to a new one, how can these NOT be in conflict? If they aren't, they really aren't very different, are they? Can you give me an example where, after a rejection of cultural value, someone re-adopts a different static value that would not be in conflict with the old values? [djh] To further clarify - I previously argued, that the distinction between Lila and the Hippies is her mental illness - not that mental illness is evidence of someone pursing DQ. [Arlo] But that was precisely the question. I asked what the distinction was that differentiated the Hippies pursuit of biological quality and Lila's pursuit of Dynamic Quality, and you answered that 'Lila was going insane'. I didn't just ask for a difference, hell, that's like saying one wore patchouli oil and the other wore perfume. I asked specifically what the critical difference was that led to the BQ/DQ differentiation. But, if I understand now, you're saying that both the Hippies and Lila began pursuing Dynamic Quality, and both stopped pursuing Dynamic Quality when they started pursuing static values of some sort. How would Phaedrus' trajectory fit into this, at what point in the narratives (of both books together, say) do you think Phaedrus stopped pursuing Dynamic Quality? Or didn't he? Was he in ZMM (pre- and/or post- breakdown)? Was he in LILA? [djh] Phaedrus breakdown is a 'mystic style' breakdown whereby he rejects all patterns quite explicitly. Lila's breakdown on the other hand is a breakdown in the 'alternative patterns style' whereby she creates alternative imagined patterns outside of the culture within which she can escape, rest and not suffer. [Arlo] I agree that there is some difference in the breakdowns, which is why I am very uneasy with talking about 'mental illness' as a precursor/evidencer/exemplar of Dynamic Quality or 'mystic' insights. But I'm not sure how you can say that in the narratives of ZMM, when Phaedrus' break occurs, that he has not "created alternative imagined patterns outside of the culture within which he can escape"? Both Phaedrus and Lila's breakdowns lead to some form of catatonic retreat, but before that the difference, to me, seems to be that Phaedrus was fixated on a cultural-intellectual illness whereas Lila was fixated on her own pain-loss. Both rejected all patterns explicitly, as I read it, and both create an alternate, albeit inevitably catatonic, 'reality' to escape into, but its the driving force of the breakdown, the fixation point, that I think really differentiates the two. [djh] Mental illness is more than a rejection of cultural values. There is an important difference between rejecting patterns and being in conflict with them that I think you're missing. Someone can reject patterns and yet not settle into patterns which are in conflict with them. This is what it means to follow Dynamic Quality and find a Dynamic solution. Not living in direct conflict with the patterns of the culture but rejecting them nonetheless.. [Arlo] I asked about this above, but, no, I do not see how rejecting patterns can not put you in conflict with them. I think the conflict occurs at the point of rejection, but if you can give me some examples of rejection without conflict, I'll reconsider. And, if you mean (as I think you imply in how you end the point above), that rejecting a pattern but nonetheless suffering through it to avoid conflict, then I think you're missing the point of what conflict means, and rejection for that matter (if I say I reject the idea of speed limits, but abide by them nonetheless, I am not really rejecting them, am I?) [djh] What is Dynamic Quality Arlo? By definition it isn't static quality. Does that make it in conflict with static quality? In other words - is Dynamic Quality *always* in conflict with static quality? [Arlo] I'd say yes, they are in conflict, and that's good! That's the energy of the MOQ's engine! Evolution occurs because of this conflict, and the fact that neither has totally dominated the other. [djh] I'll put it another way - according to the Code of Art - rejecting static patterns is moral. But let's say we always do that. Let's say we forever reject static patterns - is that good? [Arlo] No, because this privileges Dynamic Quality, and that's a mistake. As I see it, the evolutionary morality is in the rejection/creation, not in just the rejection. So the statement "rejecting static patterns is moral" is, in and of itself, wrong. If not, the most moral thing we could do is to kill ourselves, destroy the biological patterns that are the foundation of the social and intellectual levels. So I don't think 'rejecting static patterns' is a moral path. I think a better phrase would be "reconstructing static patterns better than they were is moral". [djh] Thanks for the questions Arlo - as always direct and to the point. Hopefully you find my answers in similar vein. [Arlo] I do. 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/md/archives.html
