> [djh previously] > 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?
[djh] Great questions. To your first one - Mental illness is evidence of Lila following Dynamic Quality because without Dynamic Quality Lila is stuck in bad cultural patterns. Without Dynamic Quality things do not change or grow. Lila has taken on so much bad static quality that she can no longer take it and it is her Dynamic drives which force her to deal with it.. "But Dynamically ... Ah! That's the one to watch. There's something ferociously Dynamic going on with her. All that aggression, that tough talk, those strange bewildered blue eyes. Like sitting next to a hill that's rumbling and letting off steam here and there …" and "The Metaphysics of Quality says that it is immoral for sane people to force cultural conformity by suppressing the Dynamic drives that produce insanity. Such suppression is a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one. Static social and intellectual patterns are only an intermediate level of evolution. They are good servants of the process of life but if allowed to turn into masters they destroy it." To your second question - in this context mental illness does indeed evidence the point at which someone stops following Dynamic Quality and settles into their own contradictory cultural static patterns. But there is another type of mental illness. The mental illness with which Phaedrus was afflicted. Phaedrus was mentally ill because he rejected static patterns explicitly. Phaedrus was a purity seeking mystic. He wanted to not define any static patterns (which is impossible) and this is what made him insane because he 'pretended' that he wasn't defining Dynamic Quality by his explicit rejection of it. The later, sane, Phaedrus points out in Lila that this was a mistake.. "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." > [Arlo] > 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? [djh] Yes. > [Arlo] > 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? [djh] I feel uneasy about saying that Phaedrus pursuit of Dynamic Quality 'ended' for after he checked out of the hospital he wrote two great books which were the result of very much following Dynamic Quality.. But at some point he realised that by *explicitly* rejecting static patterns - this becomes itself a pattern - and it was this explicit rejection of patterns as to why he got locked up in the first place. > [Arlo] > 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? [djh] Phaedrus didn't adopt new patterns - from his perspective he was rejecting all patterns. The reason why he was locked up was because this rejection was so explicit it became itself a pattern without Phaedrus realising. By explicitly not caring for static patterns - this put Phaedrus in conflict with the static patterns of the culture. Which brings us to your requested example where the rejection of cultural values that does not lead to a conflict with the culture.. Basically what this boils down to is can Dynamic Quality and static quality exist together without contradiction? (apologies for huge text dump once again). "Phaedrus thought that Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long hard hours without complaint was not a genetic characteristic but a cultural one. It resulted from the working out, centuries ago, of the problem of dharma and the way in which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new order, which soon becomes another old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, on and on. In the Orient there are plenty of conflicts but historically this particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. Phaedrus thought it was because dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction. For example, you would guess from the literature on Zen and its insistence on discovering the 'unwritten dharma' that it would be intensely anti-ritualistic, since ritual is the 'written dharma.' But that isn't the case. The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one ritual after another, hour after hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns to discover the unwritten dharma. They want him to get those patterns perfect! 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. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found. Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to preserve." > [Arlo] > 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] Being from the West which mostly ignores DQ, it's not surprising that we immediately think of a rejection as something which implies conflict. But there does indeed exist a 'place' whereby we can reject *all* patterns and yet not be in conflict with them. To be clear - that 'place' is Dynamic Quality and DQ is *statically* defined as not static quality. But this static definition is not Dynamic Quality for if we reject static quality then this rejection is itself a static pattern and thus not Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality isn't anything - including a rejection of static patterns! As an example of how new static patterns can exist that aren't in conflict with the old ones I would provide the MOQ itself. The MOQ isn't in conflict with SOM - in fact it includes the strength of SOM and provides a larger context with which we can view the world. The MOQ is this way because RMP worked *through* the problems of SOM and came out at a Dynamic solution.. "The question is whether she's going to work through whatever it is that makes the defence necessary or whether she is going to work around it. If she works through it she'll come out at a Dynamic solution. If she works around it she'll just head back to the old karmic cycles of pain and temporary relief." > [djh previously] > 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] Yes that's right about the Hippies and Lila. Also I don't think Phaedrus stopped pursing Dynamic Quality but (at some point while locked up) stopped explicitly rejecting static patterns for this explicit rejection itself became a static pattern and was what got him locked up to begin with. Obviously, in Lila Phaedrus was sane - Lila was the crazy one. > [djh previously] > 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] Yes, both rejected patterns but not both explicitly. We could look at 'crazy Phaedrus' and objectively point out that he has created an 'alternative reality'. But I think if we look at what Phaedrus valued / didn't value as opposed to Lila I think it's clear that Phaedrus didn't value any 'alternative reality' - he rejected reality and the static patterns which go with it all together. 'Crazy Lila' on the other hand rejected the patterns of our culture, but still created her own alternative reality with patterns which she valued. So yeah, it is what they value, their 'fixation point' which differentiates them. Phaedrus exclusively rejected patterns (to the point it became a pattern) and Lila rejected patterns but instead valued or 'fixated on' her own imagined patterns. > [djh previously] > 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] >From someone else's objective perspective who is watching you drive at the >speed limit we could say that you are not rejecting speed limits but it really >depends on whether you, Arlo, empirically, pragmatically reject speed limits.. > And if you do reject speed limits - can you reject them and still abide by >them? In other words - can you free yourself from speed limits or even all >static quality for that matter, while still caring for it? This is what Zen >is all about... Zen doesn't reject patterns by coming up with conflicting or >contradictory patterns - it rejects static patterns by caring for them, >working through them, and getting them perfect... "There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." For example in this same way RMP worked though the problems of SOM and as a result of working through these problems he was rewarded with freedom from the disharmony created by SOM - the Metaphysics of Quality. > [djh previously] > 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] Yes. A balance of Dynamic and static quality is important as without Dynamic Quality static quality does not improve and get better and without static quality, Dynamic Quality is chaos. This is how evolution works in the West as a result of the *conflict* between static and DQ. But as said above - a rejection of static quality doesn't always have to be a conflict. The East has worked out how to mostly avoid this kind of conflict.. > [djh previously] > 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] I agree that we cannot say whether something is or isn't categorically better unless there is a creation of something better. But privileging DQ is a mistake? The statement "rejecting static patterns is moral" - is wrong? The Code of Art claims that DQ is above sq. Is the Code of Art a mistake? The example you give of destroying biological patterns (and in the process someone capable of responding to DQ) is some very specific ugly static quality act and not an actual rejection of static quality. What you say is indeed not a moral path but I don't think that this could be called rejecting static quality and following Dynamic Quality. 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
