[djh] To your first one - Mental illness is evidence of Lila following Dynamic Quality because without Dynamic Quality Lila is stuck in bad cultural patterns.
[Arlo] To be clear, is 'mental illness' always evidence of this? All forms of mental illness? [djh] 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. [Arlo] This directly contradicts your previous statement. So, again, to be clear, is mental illness evidence of Dynamic Quality or the point at which they stop? [djh] 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. [Arlo] So the two forms of mental illness are contrasted by whether are not patterns are *explicitly* rejected? [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. [Arlo] *After* he checked out the hospital? Above you said that mental illness is the point at which someone stops following Dynamic Quality. As I see it, you know have three separate claims: (1) mental illness is evidence a person is driven by Dynamic Quality, (2) mental illness is evidence a person has stopped being driven by Dynamic Quality, and now (3) recovery from mental illness is evidence that a person has stopped being driven by Dynamic Quality. [djh] 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. [Arlo] So really 'conflict' for you only occurs at the point of 'explicit' action? You believe a person can 'reject' patterns but still abide by them at the same time. Like in my example, where I say "I reject speed limits" but continue to obey them. As I said, I think this misses what 'conflict' and 'rejection' mean. [djh] Basically what this boils down to is can Dynamic Quality and static quality exist together without contradiction? [Arlo] I have no idea what to make of this question. "Static quality" is the wake of "Dynamic Quality", and it is because of their conflicting nature that patterns of value evolve. [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. [Arlo] No, I think the impact of the West is in thinking that 'implicit' rejection does not count as 'conflict'. Like the Cold War was not a conflict because there was no explicit fighting. [djh] 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. [Arlo] I'd disagree. The two premises of the metaphysical systems are in conflict, just because one subsumes another rather than eradicate it does not mean there is no conflict. Just look at some of the hostility Pirsig has encountered, in both academia and the popular press, and tell me that there is no conflict between his ideas and the ideas he is rejecting. [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? [Arlo] These two comments are contradictory. First, you say that rejection must be both empirical and pragamatic. Second, you imply that rejection does not depend on acting out that rejection. I'd argue that rejection of patterns is evidenced by conflict with those patterns. That 'conflict' can appear in many forms, I can devote my life to petitioning the government to abandon speed limits, or I can disregard them and find myself in jail. In either case, 'rejection' is demonstrable in the form of conflict. In the first case, I am making a conscience decision that my rejection is better served by conflict aimed at the legal system, an act that has a greater chance to achieve my goal of eliminating speed limits. [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? [Arlo] I do not think the Code of Art is simply "reject static patterns". I think the Code of Art is "create better static patterns". [djh] 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. [Arlo] Because biological patterns are not static quality? If the moral path is to simply, as you say, "reject static patterns", does this mean only social and intellectual patterns? 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
