dmb said:
To reject static patterns of value or static patterns of quality is to reject
morals and the mythos. Given the meaning of these terms, the claim is an absurd
contradiction. You might as well say that it's moral to reject morals or it's
healthy to reject health.
djh replied:
In the MOQ there are two sets of morals though DMB. Not one. It is [Dynamic
Quality] moral to reject [static] morals. Here is the relevant passage from
Lila where RMP describes these two types of good and evil.
"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of
all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that had
motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and
punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is
static quality itself - any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to
contain and kill the ongoing free force of life. ....Static morality is full
of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values don't
change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the
same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more
softly, but the message is always the same."
dmb says:
Two sets of morals? Well, no. There are five moral codes and they are framed as
an evolutionary hierarchy. I do NOT think that the quote above justifies the
idea that it is moral to simply reject static patterns. The relation between
static and Dynamic plays a role all up and down this hierarchy, right? It's a
balancing act. Static Quality is not the enemy but rather "any pattern of
one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of
life". To the extent that static patterns PRESERVE the evolutionary advances of
the past, they are a necessary feature of the overall evolutionary process. You
may recall the phrase "static latching"? This idea works in terms of biological
evolution and Pirsig uses it to describe the process of writing the MOQ itself.
From atoms to cells to philosophy, and we ARE composed of these patterns! To
simply reject static quality is 180 degrees. It is half-baked and it is
contradicted by many, many quotes from the text includi
ng the one you recently employed in a response to Arlo...
"...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. T
here in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic
patterns the Dynamic freedom is found."
Please ask yourself if it makes sense to equate perfection and mastery with the
"rejection" or the "killing" of static patterns. Ask yourself if it makes sense
to make an enemy of the evolutionary advances so far achieved. I think the
answer is obviously, "no, that would make no sense".
"In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that
these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of
anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not
change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias
weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no
staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns
is to cling to chaos."
Even with respect to old-fashioned and obsolete values, it's wrong to simply
reject them or to simply embrace them. The levels of static quality are levels
of morality and the higher ones are supposed to be higher precisely because
they are more dynamic, more open to change. This is why we are supposed to
support an intellectual society rather than one ruled by social level values,
etc. That's what the moral codes are all about. To simply reject static
patterns in favor of DQ all by itself is to miss Pirsig point by a long shot.
This contempt for static quality is just a matter of shooting yourself in the
foot, especially since the MOQ itself is nothing but a set of intellectual
static patterns....
"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does."
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
