> [dmb said previously] > 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 said previously] > 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] > 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!
[djh] Up until this point I am in complete agreement with you dmb. Static quality isn't the enemy and the quote above does NOT justify the idea that it is moral to 'simply reject static patterns'. Static latching is important as well as the quality of preserving things. To be precise the quote above says that it is both moral and immoral to reject patterns depending on your perspective. Morality is all about a balance between Dynamic morality and static morality. But both types of morality are very different and in many instances in direct opposition with one another. So when I say there are two sets of morality I am actually talking about the importance of this static/Dynamic Quality division. Of course there are a whole lot of different levels of static good. But fundamentally in the MOQ there are two different types of good. And it is the *conflict* and resulting balance between these two types of good that is created that's important.. "As stated in Lila, static and Dynamic Quality are in opposition to each other. Radicals and liberals who are dissatisfied with static patterns will feel less threatened by Dynamic Quality. Conservatives and reactionaries will be more threatened by it." - Lila's Child. As I've said previously - RMP explains how he arrived at this sq/DQ division and it was the Dynamic morality of the Brujo which got him thinking.. "The division he finally settled on was one he didn't really choose in any deliberative way. It was more as if it chose him. He'd been reading Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture without any particular search in mind, when a relatively minor anecdote stopped him. It stayed with him for weeks. He couldn't get it out of his mind.. "The anecdote was a case-history in which there was a CONFLICT OF [static and Dynamic] MORALITY.." "The morality of the brujo in Zuni - that was Dynamic morality." .. "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." Is that anything like what's good statically? No. "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." So while you are focusing on my claim that there is a thing called Dynamic morality which is generally in opposition to static quality, I also think there is quality to static morality. But that there is quality to static quality from a Dynamic morality perspective that static quality is evil. "Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself " Here is another quote which beautifully sums up what I'm trying to say: "This pattern of static good is the essential structure of the culture itself and defines it. In the static sense the brujo was very clearly evil to oppose the appointed authorities of his tribe. Suppose everyone did that? The whole Zuni culture, after thousands of years of continuous survival, WOULD COLLAPSE INTO CHAOS. But in addition there's a Dynamic good that is outside of any culture, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are not entirely a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change would be possible, since custom cannot change custom. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER SOURCE OF GOOD AND EVIL OUTSIDE THE TRIBAL CUSTOMS THAT PRODUCES THE TRIBAL CHANGE." > [dmb] > To simply reject static quality is 180 degrees. It is half-baked and it is > contradicted by many, many quotes from the text including 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". [djh] Well it does make sense as is explained in Lila for rather than the Western context in which the *conflict* between the brujo and the priests occurred, as per the quote - the East has found a way to "include both static and DQ without contradiction". And the way to do that is to kill all 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." "From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality seems like a death experience. It's a movement from something to nothing. How can 'nothing' be any different from death? Since a Dynamic understanding doesn't make the static distinctions necessary to answer that question, the question goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say was, 'See for yourself.' When early Western investigators first read the Buddhist texts they too interpreted nirvana as some kind of suicide. There's a famous poem that goes: 'While living, Be a dead man. Be completely dead, And then do as you please. And all will be well.' It sounds like something from a Hollywood horror-film but it's about nirvana. The Metaphysics of Quality translates it: 'While sustaining biological and social patterns Kill all intellectual patterns. Kill them completely And then follow Dynamic Quality' And morality will be served." > [dmb] > "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." [djh] I agree with all that. However I think there is a difference between when RMP is talking about DQ & sq being in harmony as a result of mastery from a traditionally Eastern perspective and when DQ & sq are in opposition (and the balance created by this conflict) like we normally presume from a traditionally Western perspective. The MOQ shows the value of both perspectives. So when RMP talks about killing static patterns he isn't saying (as would be presumed from a western perspective) to trash them. But he is saying to *completely* kill them. Master them with such proficiency that they're gone! "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." 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
