[djh]
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.
[Arlo]
The oscillation between destruction and creation is moral evolutionary force. I
don't think its just 'me' who emphasizes 'creation', I think Pirsig does as
well. The entirety of the MOQ's hierarchies is the wake of the this
oscillation, it is the path of "betterness"; Point B is better than Point A.
[djh]
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.
[Arlo]
The movement towards 'betterness' ('perfection') is, by definition, the
replacing of static patterns with better ones. The very moment you do something
'better' is evidence that two oppositional patterns were evaluated and the
'better' one dominated.
As I said, I have no doubt that meditation and ritual can 'free' the mind from
attending to static patterns and opens the door for Dynamic Quality. But, if
nothing changes, if you have [Point A -> DQ -> Point A] then I think you're
missing the point of opening the door to Dynamic Quality in the first place.
You seem to imply that Zen monks enter this 'killing static patterns' state and
emerge without any creational/bettering enlightenment at all.
For example, if a mechanic 'ritualizes' his routines so that he can be open to
Dynamic Quality when repairing his motorcycle, this better produce 'better'
repair, and if it doesn't then there is little point. And the moment his repair
is improved (Point B is better than Point A) you have evidence of the
creational component of the moral evolutionary force.
Maybe the point I should make is that 'creation' is not just 'new' (as in
something completely different) but is also 'improved'. Any time there is
movement towards 'betterness' this evidences the creational component of the
Code of Art.
[djh]
Without a 'rejection' of static patterns, the Code of Art would not be
possible. This is all I have ever stated.
[Arlo]
Sure, and all I was saying was that its not JUST rejection that is the Code of
Art but creation as well.
[djh]
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.
[Arlo]
In the moment of pure mediation, in the absence of all static patterns, sure,
there is no conflict between patterns because they don't exist. But this
ignores two critical points, namely the "Point A" (static patterns before this
moment) and "Point B" (static patterns after this moment). If the rejection of
static patterns and opening of Dynamic Quality does not produce ANY
discrepancies between A and B, then I'd say it failed to achieve. The
unavoidable 'conflict' occurs the moment the Zen monk re-enters the world of
static patterns with 'something better', new patterns to replace the old,
better patterns to replace the previous ones.
[djh]
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.
[Arlo]
I'd say only Phaedrus produced better patterns. To nitpick, I'd say Lila didn't
create anything new at all. She latched on static patterns, to be sure, but
these are more like an amalgamation of previously existing biological and
social patterns. For example, consider the difference between Cezanne first
painting Pines and Rocks, and a sidewalk painter who paints you a replica. Your
'replica' may be at the level of minutia 'different' from all other replicas
(and the original), but it hasn't created anything new, its a rearrangement of
static patterns rather than something better. (I realize this is a huge topical
area, and a fascinating one, so if this is something you'd like to pursue,
maybe this should be a thread in and of itself.)
[djh]
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?
[Arlo]
No, of course not. But maybe I should've phrased my words better. To restate,
all three in my example (Lila, Phaedrus and the Hippies) evidence (equally) the
rejectional component in the pursuit of Dynamic Quality. Something set them off
on a path to 'better', and that something was Dynamic Quality. But, of these
three only Phaedrus represents the creational component of Dynamic Quality, a
return to the world with that 'something better'. Both the Hippies and Lila
reattached to previous static patterns, and at that moment stopped following
Dynamic Quality.
The fixation of Lila on a fixation on the rejection, but ultimately by itself
misses the mark. And why it is maddening here, is because this forum (and Horse
can correct me if I am wrong) is about the 'creational' component that comes
after the 'rejection'. Yes, we should reject intellectual patterns, question
them, etc. but here is the space where we've come back and are building
something 'better'.
My advice, go out and reject and meditate and sit on a mountaintop and stare at
the moon and dance by the fire and perform the tea ceremonies... and then,
inspired by whatever insight this openness to Dynamic Quality brought, come
here and build something better, create 'better' patterns to replace the old.
This is why I admire people like Ant, DMB, David Granger, Dan, Matthew
Crawford, Ron DiSanto, and the others on Ant's site and in this forum who are
not simply walking around saying 'reject' but who are using the insights gained
during that time of rejection to actively create something better. (I hate
lists because I always feel like I'm omitting people I do not mean to, so
forgive the brevity, there are many others I would include.)
[djh]
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?
[Arlo]
Yes, I'd agree these are similar statements.
[djh]
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?
[Arlo]
I didn't say that the rejection of patterns is ipso facto immoral. What I said
was that the moral force is in the oscillation between rejection and creation.
In the case of suicide, as was the example, the act is pure
rejection/destruction without any creational component, and thus I'd hold that
act to be immoral, and that immorality derives from the fact that because of
this the evolutionary trajectory is weakened. I've been avoiding quotes, but
I'll make a small exception here.
"The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a
society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and evolution." (LILA)
This quite easily frames the same argument against suicide. Both are 'killing
patterns', but leaves the creational component weakened.
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
