> [djh said previously] > 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] Without a 'rejection' of static patterns, the Code of Art would not be possible. This is all I have ever stated. [Culturally] the Code of Art is all about the importance of an undefined quality which is not defined within our current cultural understanding. > [djh previously] > 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] I disagree. It's no co-incidence that you emphasise creation in the Code of Art. In the West, Dynamic morality is about things which have already been created. Like the brujo for instance. We can only judge the morality of the brujo based on his static quality actions. Yes, he is following DQ but his actions are what we judge him on and the tension between his new static quality actions and the existing static quality of the priests, as you suggest, is where the harmony can be found. Alternatively though, there is another type of harmony which is not about a balance between two opposing qualities but the entire 'killing' of one of those qualities through its perfection and thus its subsequent revealing of the DQ which was there all along. Though to call this harmony would seem to imply that Dynamic Quality is some static thing which it isn't. So perhaps you're right that my use of the term 'harmony' here is not the best but this is still another type of rejection which is a rejection through the killing and perfection of static patterns and not a rejection by the creation of alternative patterns as the brujo does above. > [djh previously] > 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] To be clear your explanation shows how you think they are the *same* in the creation of static patterns not different.. " 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." Anyway, in both cases you talk of a conflict between Dynamic morality and static morality. And with regards to the Brujo you're right that through his rejection of the static patterns of the culture, the Brujo creates alternative contrary patterns. And it is this conflict between the Brujo's new patterns and the old patterns of the priests which is what is important. Alternatively through, by their killing of all patterns - alternative or otherwise, the Zen folks remove all conflict, including conflict between new patterns or old patterns. > [djh previously] > 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] Harmony can be a 'balance' between the two conflicting [static] qualities of static and Dynamic morality, OR it can be found in the absence of conflict between these qualities through the killing of static patterns entirely. But to call this harmony perhaps is a stretch so as stated previously you're probably right to pick me up on it.. > [djh previously] > 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] I agree with the existence of the three stages. (Though unfortunately we can attempt to follow DQ but end up producing low quality[like Lila] and not always high quality as Point C presumes). Anyway, what do you mean that Phaedrus is an exemplar for the creational regrounding of DQ? You seem to think that only Phaedrus (and not Lila) created new patterns as a result of following DQ but that is not the case. You seem to assume that we can reject static quality without following Dynamic Quality. I mean how is that even possible? What is there after an actual rejection of static quality if it isn't DQ? I think it's important to note that if they do not follow Dynamic Quality then nothing changes and they are stuck with the original static patterns. This is why I say that it is Lila's Dynamic drives which cause her insanity. And these statements about Lila following DQ are confirmed by RMP: "The Metaphysics of Quality says that it is immoral for sane people to force cultural conformity by suppressing the Dynamic drives that produce insanity. Such suppression is a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one. Static social and intellectual patterns are only an intermediate level of evolution. They are good servants of the process of life but if allowed to turn into masters they destroy it." and.. "Lila then becomes a complex ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality. Lila individually, herself, is in an evolutionary battle against the static patterns of her own life. That's why the absence of suffering last night seemed so ominous and her change to what looked like suffering today gave Phaedrus a feeling she was getting better. If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process. All these battles between patterns of evolution go on within suffering individuals like Lila. And Lila's battle is everybody's battle, you know?" So I don't think that Lila is an exemplar of someone 'pursuing Dynamic Quality' but she has valued rejecting static patterns and this means that she has (to some extent) followed DQ. The trouble was she didn't work through her problems and instead worked around them.. "The question is whether she's going to work through whatever it is that makes the defence necessary or whether she is going to work around it. If she works through it she'll come out at a Dynamic solution. If she works around it she'll just head back to the old karmic cycles of pain and temporary relief." And that's where she ended up in the end of the book. > [djh previously] > 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] I don't have any statistics but this is not what I think, nor does RMP: "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 previously] > 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] Right. I think we agree though Arlo, we're just using different terms… I firstly agree that there's two different types of rejection. I also agree that the Zen monks don't create some other contrary static patterns(such as a rape ceremony) and do those. This would be called, in Zen terms, bad Karma chasing its tail. But they do reject *all* patterns. They do this by putting these patterns to sleep through the mastery of them.. This is one type of rejection. The other type of rejection is the type of rejection we are used to in the West whereby we are interested in the comparative static quality of the patterns with a constant eye on creating contrary patterns to reject the original patterns. I see that you're using the 'rejecting attending to patterns' in the way I would say that 'reject interest in the comparative static quality of the patterns'. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are pretty much the saying the same thing here? > [djh previously] > No, suicide isn't low quality because it is in an encyclopaedia.... > > [Arlo] > Well, this was what you said… [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." I said suicide can be found in an encyclopaedia *and* it's low quality not *because*. But still there was confusion. Perhaps I need to explain myself better.. > [djh previously] > 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. [djh] Well I can join you in condemning the 'narrow' point of view that morality is simply 'rejecting patterns'. There is also a whole other aspect of morality called 'maintaining patterns'. I disagree with you though that rejection without creation is immoral. For starters how could anything be moral if an original rejection (without there yet being any creation) be immoral? Dynamic Quality which by definition is not static quality, could be described as a rejection of static patterns. RMP goes so far as to call static quality evil from a Dynamic morality perspective. I think *both* qualities are necessary. 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
