Dear Rog,
Thank you for your reasoned response to my post. Your positive comments
regarding the compassion/passion angle are most appreciated. I respect and
understand your criticisms of the post and find your Reponses consistent
with Pirsig's writings in general and with LILA specifically when viewed
through the filter of importance in outcome. And while I respect your
approach, there are many in the world, myself included, who believe that
outcome is less important than process. A tribute to Pirsig's writings is
that he speaks to both camps simultaneously. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen,
there really is no concept of good and evil, so destruction is indeed
relative. Rather, there is wrong thinking and right thinking. There is a
moral approach to a situation and one that is poor in spirit and therefore
in need of guidance. There is no single act that is a sin or immoral, but
rather actions that stem from wrong thinking and, as a result, are foolishly
without harmony. The process of acting in harmony with the whole and with
minimal selfish desire is our goal, and it is believed that outcome from
such an approach is always of value, regardless of whether it is immediately
apparent or not. In the West this is called Faith. LILA begins with a man
who has experienced a satori, true. but who has no faith and little
compassion. It ends with a man who understands that all he can possibly do
is be true to his beliefs and take responsibility for his actions and
thereby his creations.
I tried to be careful not to use the terms "good intentions" or "bad
intentions" in order to avoid the trivialization of such concepts as is
evident in such phrases as "the road to Hell is paved with..." However one
might replace intent with motivation. Even in the Western Judeo-Christian
faith, to be without covetousness is a tenet. In some sects, it represents
two separate tenets. Isn't covetousness an intent?
I continue to be open to all possibilities, when not categorically disproved
by science, so I am intrigued whether or not cells have the capacity for
intent. I will reread some of the past posts by our colleagues regarding
cells and their awareness to aid me in this quest for truth.
Much thanks for all of your comments as the diversity of opinion is what
makes this forum strong.
Regards,
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: <RISKYBIZ9@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: MD Overdoing the dynamic
> THE Q:
> "What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction,
> decay and disorder don't?"
>
> BARD:
> Having read Rog's posts, I am reminded of the subjectivity of the words
> decay, destruction, etc...
>
> ROG:
> I am not following you. It seems destruction and decay are pretty
objective.
> Are you are getting to the issue of relative decay or destruction (where
one
> pattern benefits as another is destroyed)? Certainly I understand that
this
> exists, and I offer that it is BETTER if neither is destroyed, and it is
BEST
> if the two can not only not harm each other, but also cooperate together
for
> even higher quality. (Quality across the greatest span and depth.) Would
you
> agree?
>
> BARD:
> It seems that it is the intention that precedes an action that determines
> whether the outcome is of Quality.
>
> ROG:
> And you thought the original Q was subjective? :^)
>
> OK, I will play along....So what then are good intentions? To rephrase
the
> Q, "what separates good intentions from intentions of destruction, decay
and
> disorder?"
>
> To be honest though, I think your intentions argument may fall flat in
> places. Wanting to do good and causing serious destruction is still of
poor
> quality. The goodness of intentions is that it reflects that we can and
do
> influence reality. When we engage in war with the intent of minimizing
> destruction and trying to end the war as soon as possible, we are
intending
> to be less destructive. If we are successful in our aims, higher quality
can
> be achieved.
>
> Good intentions and bad results is indeed high quality intent and low
quality
> result. Bad intentions and accidental good results is indeed low quality
> intent and high quality outcome. Good intent and good results is very
moral
> indeed. High quality acroos the greatest span and depth!
>
> As for your specific examples, your hunter is actually a difference in
intent
> between hunting for biological quality (food) and social quality
> (status/prowess). In either case, the prey is dead. What makes this moral
or
> immoral?
>
> As mentioned above, your War argument for compassion, minimizing punitive
> measures and ending conflict implicitly supports the Q. You are arguing
that
> these are harmful to higher quality. So, what do the patterns of higher
> quality have that those of destruction, decay and disorder don't?
>
> You then go on to mention that "it is a Quality event when the cells of
the
> human body decay each seven years to make room for newer cells." It is?
Is
> it the decay and the bold, compassionate sacrifice of these little suckers
> that is of quality? Or is it the regenerativeness?
>
> The same argument goes for "revitalizing the environment" when dead,
> destroyed, temporarily disordered creatures are recycled into patterns of
> higher quality. The decaying isn't the quality event, the ensuing
> reorganization is. Right?
>
> BARD:
> Even the bacteria and viruses that cause disease, often strengthen the
host
> that survives and provide immunity through evolution to his descendants.
>
> ROG:
> Careful here, you are mischaracterizing evolution as Lamarkian. The point
> you make though is that forces of disorder and decay and destruction are
the
> driving force of higher quality. A point Pirsig makes and that I strongly
> agree with. (though it needs to be extended to the social sphere carefully
to
> avoid Social Darwinism)
>
> BARD:
> However cancer raises the question of intention at the cellular level. The
> cancer cell seems hell-bent on an all consuming mission, without reference
to
> the whole, interested only in the self, and eventually destroying both its
> host and, thereby, itself. It has lost its compassion. It was not content
to
> live in harmony. Does this mean some cells have compassion while others do
> not?
>
> ROG:
> I would argue that it shows the limitations of the intention argument when
> overextended to nonintentional (or at least borderline nonintentional)
> entities. (See 'are atoms aware" discussion from last year). Cancer is
an
> example of a cell regenerating out of control temporarily generating new
> cells but at the long range cost of destroying billions of cells and
higher
> level emegent patterns of the animal.
>
> Overall, I see mucho quality in your passion and compassion model. Let me
> ask though, is compassion destructive, decadent and disordering? What is
> compassion?
>
> Rog
> PS -- I REALLY like the compassion/passion angle. Thanks very, very much.
I
> will use this one in the future.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST