[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

>Mark 13-10-06: Hello Dan.
>I agree. He was attacking static  social patterns with intellectual  skill.
>I think the Buddha helped  initiate Eastern Intellectual development.
>But the poem under discussion  is part of the initial attack! So,  how can
>intellectual patterns be  included in the body of the references in the   
>poem
>itself?

Hi Mark

I am unsure what you're asking  here.
 
Mark 14-10-06: Hello Dan.
Imagine you could travel back to the time and place where the Buddha  lived?
What sort of culture would you find?
I will tell you: A culture severely dominated by religious ritual.
There is a ritual for every aspect of the day from waking up until going to  
bed. Non stop.
Some people found it excruciatingly pointless and did something about  it.
Simply saying, 'Hey, this is a bit much! I want to live more freely' does  
not wash, because you are told you're being blasphemous to avoid the  rituals.
You know, all that religious control freaky shit religious people go in  for?
The Buddha was sneaky: He claimed that rituals where the source of  pain.
So, when he says, 'Live as a dead man' he is saying, 'don't observe any  
rituals.'
This idea is backed up by intellectual arguments.
>From a MoQ perspective we can see the intellectual patterns of the Buddha  
challenging the social patterns of his culture.
One way of doing this is to go straight for DQ because there is no place  for 
the intellectual patterns to latch - yet.
As time moved on, the intellectual advances where included into the culture  
of Buddhist thought and the emphasis on DQ remained.
 
Dan:
So far as I know, the Buddha offered no 
relief to the poor, he didn't  heal the sick, and he didn't feed the hungry 
and house the homeless. He was  pretty much apolitical too. Yet he taught how 
to end the suffering of every  sentient being.
 
Mark 14-10-06:
Re: poor. The poor are actually less than Humans in the Indian cast  system.
Did you know that Dan?
In Indian culture, the different casts are not simply different classes of  
Human economic viability.
Nope. The different casts are held to be different species.
I'm not joking.
Re: Sick: I don't know in what way Indian culture regarded the sick.
Re: Starving. I don't know in what way Indian culture regarded the  starving.
Re: Homeless: The rituals i mentioned above revolved around the Home. This  
is why the Buddha wandered without home, because he was escaping the very heart 
 of Indian culture's rituals. He's not going to fucking house the homeless 
then  is he!!!
Re Suffering: Drop cast system and stop treating some as less than human  (no 
divisions)
 
Dan:
The Buddha taught that there 
are no divisions but those we make in our  own minds and then declare to be 
true. His teachings seem to go way beyond  the social structures of his day, 
or our day for that matter.
 
Mark 14-10-06: As i said, there was nowhere for the intellectual advances  
the Buddha made to latch so the emphasis on DQ remains.
Later thinkers explored logic and stuff but DQ remained central.
I think i understand this.
The, 'lack of division' argument is an argument after all. If you read the  
Pali cannon the arguments are there to undermine those who insist they know 
they  are right simply because they have social convention on their side. It's 
most  effective.
Any empirical experience of a lack of division cannot be encapsulated in a  
'lack of division' argument because such arguments may be challenged.
The point is, in order to challenge the lack of division argument, you have  
to behave intellectually.
 
Dan:
You seem to be not only trivializing what Robert 
Pirsig is saying, but  the teachings of Buddhism as well. But as I said, 
perhaps I am  misunderstanding what you are saying.
 
Mark 14-10-06:
I don't want to trivialise. I want to understand and not live with the  
notion that the Buddha was anything more than a human being, assuming he lived  at 
all (which is contentious) Don't you think we've has enough of placing  
individuals on pillars and then turning them into semi-gods?

>
><snip>
>Dan:
>You're taking a very simple  quote and intellectualizing it into  something
>that runs on and on  like a monkey chasing a monkey. If that seems   
>esoteric,
>well, then I guess it is esoteric.
>
>Mark  13-10-06: I don't think you're being esoteric here.
>I don't think i'm  intellectualising to the extent you portray.
>It's simple with a little  reflection - i'm not doing tensor sets or shit
>like that.

Dan:
I know you don't think you are intellectualizing.
 
Mark 14-10-06: I did not say this. I said i don't think i'm  
intellectualising to the extent you portray, which is to say, 'Intellectualising  it into 
something that runs on and on like a monkey chasing a monkey.' In  other words, i 
am insisting there is an aim to what i am saying which makes  sense.
It's too easy to dismiss anything as pointless.
 
Dan:
I'm like that too. Still, 
often times I find that instead of endlessly  chattering and running around 
with my "monkey mind" looking for that which I  have yet to find, I simply 
settle down.
 
Mark 14-10-06: Now look here mate, lets leave the Monkey mind to those who  
chitter chatter without any coherent intellectual or informed aim.
I'm not insulted, but i'm beginning to get the idea that you're right up  
your own arse.
 
Dan:
Once I sit for a while I see it's right there in front of me 
and has  been all along. One day you'll see that too.

Thanks for your  comments,

Dan
 
Mark 14-10-06: Yes. You are indeed right up your own arse.
Love,
Mark