Arlo-Djh.
Of course I'm playing the antagonist here (because I think its very narrow to say that 'morality' is simply 'rejecting patterns'), I think morality lies in the path of sustained evolution. Or, to go back to what I said earlier, morality is in rejection/creation within an evolutionary system. Maybe what I'll say next is at odds with how Pirsig conceives this, but I think the reason why suicide is immoral is that it is nothing but 'rejection' of static patterns, like Lila's breakdown it has the rejection without the creation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrie, as an aside. Hi Arlo. Your conclusion here made me think, i have some doubts. I think suicide is of course inherently entangled with the factual case of dying.But the question wether suiicide is immoral,is a moral question only. Dying as a fact on itself, regardless of any reason, cannot be moral or immoral,the fact will happen anyhow sooner or later,it can only become immoral if induced,provoked etc, and 'has' the presence of the moral framework to question the act....in wich life is not the only antagonist of death,but morality induces itself as an antagonist of suicide, and the background setting of this line of reasoning is theistic, imho. I was also thinking about this;...a man under the influence of alcohol kills himself, he performs the act a split second after he fomatted the tought,and was completely drunk,can this be an immoral act? Maybe these are only some asides really. 2013/7/1 ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > [djh] > I agree with that. The code of art is much more than rejecting patterns. > > [Arlo] > Okay, but this isn't what you had stated originally. > > [djh] > 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. > > [Arlo] > I'm not sure you really understand what 'opposition' and 'conflict' means. > Every time something 'new' replaces something 'old', there has been > opposition and conflict. I think you're stuck in seeing conflict as > violent, and it can be, but its the ubiquitous tension between static and > Dynamic. Without this tension, nothing would change, indeed without this > tension there would be nothing to change. When you say 'in harmony', all > this means is that the old patterns are artfully excised and replaced with > the new, it does not mean there was no tension or no opposition. > > [djh] > 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. > > [Arlo] > Well, the difference here is the evolution or creation brought about the > Brujo. In the case of meditation, while it while may certain eliminate > attachment to static patterns, it alone does nothing creational until > whatever insights that produces are brought into conflict with existing > static patterns. Had the Brujo simply mediated and habituated the laws, > rather than bring them into conflict, there would have been no change. Your > two examples are different not in the rejection of static patterns, but in > creation of better static patterns. > > [djh] > 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. > > [Arlo] > I don't think you really understand the 'Eastern' perspective, David, you > keep evoking it to excuse your words, but 'harmony' in this sense is not > the absence of conflict or opposition, it is the equilibrium, the balance, > of the two conflicting qualities. It is not the elimination of 'conflict', > it is the balancing the conflict so as not be 'stuck' or not to be > 'destructive'. > > [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. ... Phaedrus devalued the cultural patterns because he devalued > all patterns. ... Lila created a completely new set of cultural patterns to > value instead. > > [Arlo] > I think this misses a fundamental point. At a bare minimum we have a three > stage 'process'. Point A begins with adherence to static patterns. Point B > is the rejection of those static patterns. Point C is the creation of > 'something better'. > > Both Phaedrus and Lila (and the Hippies) begin at a Point A. Both proceed > into a Point B (to the point of social incarceration). Only Phaedrus moves > on to a Point C. (To be fair, we never are given the conclusion to Lila's > narrative, maybe she emerges as a world class philosopher or artist, or > maybe she is sitting inside a padded room cradling a doll.) > > This is why I think its misleading to hold Lila up as an exemplar of > someone 'pursuing Dynamic Quality', as you've done many times in recent > months. Of these three (the Hippies, Lila and Phaedrus), all equally serve > of exemplars of the 'rejection' of static quality, but only Phaedrus serves > as an exemplar for the 'creational' regrounding of Dynamic Quality. > > [djh] > Right on about the brujo. The brujo being from the West is a prime > example of how change and conflict traditionally occur. > > [Arlo] > I think you may need to read Eastern history. The East is as ripe with > Brujos, and change and conflict, as the West. > > [djh] > 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.. > > [Arlo] > The actors in a tea ceremony are not rejecting the tea ceremony. This is a > critical point. They are 'rejecting' attending to the static patterns that > make up the activity, but there is no attempt to 'reject' the tea ceremony > itself (or else they would simply replacing it with another habitual > activity). If a particular Zen monk decided the tea ceremony is, in some > way, detrimental, the tea ceremony would be abandoned and replaced. Think > of it this way, why don't Zen monks perform ritual rape ceremonies rather > than tea ceremonies? Its because they reject rape, and they do not reject > tea. > > Ritual is a way of making accepted patterns so automatic that they are no > longer necessary to attend to, the dissolve into the background and allow > the mind to open to Dynamic Quality. It is a way to reject attending to > static patterns through complete acquiescence to those patterns. They are > not rejecting 'tea ceremonies', they are rejecting 'attending to the tea > ceremony'. > > This is why the Brujo would not have simply ritualized obedience to the > laws, it was because he rejected those laws. But, I imagine, the Brujo had > other patterns in his life he could have ritualized, the way a mechanic > ritualizes his interactions with the motorcycle, or the way a cellist may > ritualize performing music. > > [djh] > No, suicide isn't low quality because it is in an encyclopaedia.... > > [Arlo] > Well, this was what you said... > > [djh] > 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'.. > > [Arlo] > So the moral goal would be for ALL people to kill themselves. That way, > the social and intellectual levels are completely eliminated, and no one is > left to 'burden' themselves with them. > > Of course I'm playing the antagonist here (because I think its very narrow > to say that 'morality' is simply 'rejecting patterns'), I think morality > lies in the path of sustained evolution. Or, to go back to what I said > earlier, morality is in rejection/creation within an evolutionary system. > Maybe what I'll say next is at odds with how Pirsig conceives this, but I > think the reason why suicide is immoral is that it is nothing but > 'rejection' of static patterns, like Lila's breakdown it has the rejection > without the creation. > > 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 > -- parser 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
