> [djh] > In the MOQ there are two sets of morals though DMB. Not one. It is [Dynamic > Quality] moral to reject [static] morals. > > [Arlo] > As DMB points out, there are not two sets of morals, but rather an > evolutionary hierarchy. And while Dynamic Quality opposes static quality (and > vice versa), I think the Code of Art is about much more than simply rejecting > patterns. By definition, "art" is creational. Pirsig calls it simply "a high > quality endeavor", and I think in every instance its used its about the > creation of something; a rotisserie, a working motorcycle, an essay in a > college rhetoric class, a book on philosophy, etc.
[djh] I agree with that. The code of art is much more than rejecting patterns.. When we talk of creation we can talk about two different types of creation. Things can be created in opposition to static patterns, as they are in the brujo example, or they can be created in harmony with static patterns, as they are in the unwritten Dharma example. So to be clear - in order to create anything better there must be either a rejection (in the brujo Western sense) or killing (in the Zen Eastern sense) of existing static patterns - however what is created in each instance is still statically very much important - which seems to be your point. > [djh] > Without a 'rejection' or 'killing' of static quality things never change, > they never get better. > > [Arlo] > Exactly, and this is why rejecting patterns is conflict. You can't have > change without conflict, unless you don't understand what conflict means. The > Brujo example you cited is an example of this. He was following 'betterness', > and this created conflict with existing patterns, which through the > resolution of that conflict were made better. [djh] To be clear that creation from conflict is what we are used to from a Western perspective. It is this type of temporary freedom from the suffering of static patterns that drives change and is discussed at length in Lila - especially at the beginning with the Brujo example. As I said to DMB, I think it's important to recognise when RMP is talking about DQ/sq being in conflict from what would be a traditionally Western perspective and when they are in harmony from a traditionally Eastern perspective.. Otherwise we're stuck with a whole bunch of contradictory RMP quotes.. "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." and.. "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." > > [djh] > Mental illness is evidence a person in driven by DQ because unless they are > insane when born, they will at some point value the static patterns of the > culture and be a part of that culture.... Lila's mental illness is evidence > she has stopped being driven by DQ... > > [Arlo] > I imagine you think this makes sense (and I imagine you'll invoke an > 'eastern' insight to say so), but you really have too many contradictory > things going on, and maybe part of your problem is you're trying to use > generalities. Your last post has it up to three (maybe four) different type > of 'mental illness', some evidence of, some evidence against, some maybe > unrelated (I am not sure where you'd characterize 'biological' mental > illness). And now you've moved to characterize Phaedrus as either never > mentally ill, or never stopping being driven by Dynamic Quality, and this is > now a knot of words I can't unravel. [djh] I'll try and make this easier. There is only one type of mental illness. This can be described as folks who cannot or do not value the patterns of the culture with which they're in. But as is described in Lila and ZMM there are different things which 'cause' the devaluing of cultural patterns. "When the culture asks, 'Why doesn't this person see things the way we do?' you can answer that he doesn't see them because he doesn't value them. He's gone into illegal value patterns because the illegal patterns resolve value conflicts that the culture's unable to handle. The causes of insanity may be all kinds of things, from chemical imbalances to social conflicts. But insanity has solved these conflicts with illegal patterns which appear to be of higher quality." Phaedrus devalued the cultural patterns because he devalued all patterns. Including basic ones like walking or going to the bathroom.. "Fear of loathsomeness and shame disappear when his urine flows not deliberately but naturally on the floor of the room. Fear of pain, the pain of the martyrs is overcome when cigarettes burn not deliberately but naturally down into his fingers until they are extinguished by blisters formed by their own heat. His wife sees his injured hands and the urine on the floor and calls for help." Lila created a completely new set of cultural patterns to value instead.. "'Why did you do it?' he asked. 'He killed my baby.' 'How?' She pointed to the floor below the bunk. Phaedrus saw the doll lying face down on the floor. He watched her for a moment, wanting to be careful what to say. Finally he said, 'Shall I pick it up?' And I've also said that mental illness can be caused biologically as well which is also written about in Lila.. "The causes of insanity may be all kinds of things, from chemical imbalances to social conflicts." Now what have I said that is wrong? > [djh] > But Arlo, as stated in the quote provided RMP explicitly says that in the > East sq and DQ often exist harmoniously together. > > [Arlo] > I'd say balance, or equilibrium, but that does not mean the patterns are no > longer in conflict. I suggest watching the Argument Clinic from Monty Python. [djh] That's right it doesn't meant that the patterns are no longer in conflict for ever and ever… No matter how long one 'experiences' pure DQ for, there will always be static quality to come along. But that's not to say that harmony, or a lack of conflict isn't impossible either. > [djh] > To reiterate - a ritual could be going at the speed limit. It is possible to > be free of the speed limit while following this ritual! > > [Arlo] > I have no doubt that ritual can free the person to attend to Dynamic Quality, > but I can't imagine if the Brujo just made of ritual of obeying the laws, > rather brought them into conflict, anything would have changed. By the way, > what you're describing is not a rejection of the speed limit, but complete > acquiescence to the point where they become habitual. The monks in your tea > ceremony example are not rejecting the tea ceremony, they have accepted it > and have worked to make it so habitual they no longer have to attend to it. > That's quite a difference. [djh] Right on about the brujo. The brujo being from the West is a prime example of how change and conflict traditionally occur. The great thing about the MOQ is that we can discuss how freedom can be achieved in both the West and East and the benefits/drawbacks of both ways. However I don't think you quite have it right about Eastern mastery and its killing of static patterns. An example of why Zen mastery is not just an acquiescence or an acceptance but a complete and utter rejection would be the following quote from Zen teacher Steve Hagen.. "We think that we’re going to get something from [Meditation]– that it will lower our blood pressure, reduce our stress, calm us down, or enhance our concentration. And, we tell ourselves, if we meditate long enough, and in just the right way, it might even bring us to enlightenment. All of this is delusion. As long as we insist that meditation must have some use or purpose or meaning, or fulfil us in certain ways, we fail to understand it. As my teacher (and many other teachers before him) used to say, 'meditation is useless'.” > [djh] > No not because biological patterns are not static quality but because an act > such as suicide can be found in an encyclopaedia and is just low biological > quality and not an actual rejection or killing of static patterns. > > [Arlo] > If 'suicide' is low quality because it is in an encyclopedia, then so is > 'existence'. > > But, to use your example, if I kill a cow, or a germ, you're saying these are > not 'killing of static patterns'? No, suicide isn't low quality because it is in an encyclopaedia, it is low quality because in the process it destroys someone who is capable of responding to DQ and dealing with the burdens of 'the social and intellectual patterns that cause the suicide'.. "A common way taken to kill them is suicide, but suicide only kills biological patterns. That's like destroying a computer because you can't stand the program it's running. The social and intellectual patterns that caused the suicide have to be carried on by others. From an evolutionary point of view it's really a backward and therefore immoral step." Of course you are killing biological patterns but this isn't an actual complete rejection of static patterns for there are still patterns which are being neglected by suicide (specifically the patterns which are left behind by the person committing suicide) and this is what makes it an ugly low quality act which can be found in an encyclopedia. An actual killing of all static patterns cannot be found in an encyclopedia for that is not any thing.. 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
