[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
What pages are you referring to? For example, where does he describe the 8-fold
path?

[Arlo]
Referred to here, "Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce
right thoughts. Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce
work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at
the center of it all."

Some other relevant observations.

"He became aware that the doctrinal differences among Hinduism and Buddhism and
Taoism are not anywhere near as important as doctrinal differences among
Christianity and Islam and Judaism. Holy wars are not fought over them because
verbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself."

"Zen has something to say about boredom. Its main practice of "just sitting" has
got to be the world’s most boring activity...unless it’s that Hindu
practice of being buried alive. You don’t do anything much; not move, not
think, not care. What could be more boring? Yet in the center of all this
boredom is the very thing Zen Buddhism seeks to teach. What is it? What is it
at the very center of boredom that you’re not seeing?"

I suggest again you simply read ZMM, Platt. If you need additional resources
afterwards, I'd be happy to suggest a few. Your local Zen Center, like the one
Pirsig established in Minneapolis, should have some resources for you as well.

[Platt]
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the "and" to apply to "creative forces." To
rephrase, do you disagree with Pirsig about Quality being a creative force?

[Arlo]
"Quality is a creative force" is a profound metaphor. But it is not "Truth". Any
symbolic representation will ultimately be incomplete. "... verbalized
statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself..." This is
why mystic experience is valuable. It points outside the system.

"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
"Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't
have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition.
Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions." (LILA)

"The Metaphysics of Quality associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality
but it would certainly be a mistake to think that the Metaphysics of Quality
endorses the static beliefs of any particular religious sect." (LILA)

[Platt]
If I pander to Christians, you pander to Indians.

[Arlo]
I no more think Indian spirituality is a exclusive system than I do
Christianity. But, with Pirsig, I believe Native American mysticism and
spirituality, along with Zen Buddhism and Taoism, offer profound systems that
should not only NOT be ignored, but actively considered. And, I believe, that
one reason Pirsig found such profound similarity between Quality and the
Buddha/Tao and Native American mysticism, is that these metaphors originate in
non-S/O cultures (as is alluded to in the quote above). Remember that LILA ends
in Pirsig recognizing that the non-S/O culture of the Native American had it
right all along. "Good is a noun". 


[Platt]
Since the Founding Fathers believed in God and the Judeo-Christian ethic,
creating a nation the envy of world, I really don't see the problem in
following their lead.

[Arlo]
First, Pirsig argues that the notion that "all men are created equal" comes from
the Native American. Democracy comes to us from Ancient Greece, and is based on
reason, not on the mandate of God. Those who set up the beginning government of
this country relied heavily on reason. And for that we should be grateful.

But praytell what part of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" did thy rely on? Are you
suggesting a theocracy?

[Platt]
The "problem" as Pirsig describes it is not with the Judeo-Christian ethics but
with SOM intellect.  

[Arlo]
The problem is with any ethical code forgetting it is just an analogy. And as
such, it is culturally and situationally bound. Times change. We change. 

[Arlo previously]
In that case, making sticky buns appears to be transcendent for me. 

[Platt] 
Even I give you more credit for intelligence than that. :-) Check your
dictionary.

[Arlo]
I have recipes, Platt. I can tell you that is not the problem. :-( 

[Arlo previously]
"Oops" is simply meant to demean. The question is, do you believe that a "plan"
for everything existed before everything? If so, where? In some "transcendent
mind"? I don't ascribe a plan to the unfolding of the cosmos. It does so
because of Quality, and as particulars collectivize into more and more complex
patterns, yes, there are moments of "AHA!", where complexity takes off in a
whole new direction. The question is, 100 trillion years ago, was there a
design for "people"? Where?

And then all my other questions come back into play. 300 billion years of life
on this planet. 150 million years of dinosaurs, with primates occupying only a
blip in the biosphere. Only after major, random, climate and environmental
events were primates able to flourish, and only then after 65 million years of
evolution, with increasing complexity and thousands and thousands of species,
was anything resembling primative man able to exist. And only then, due to a
biological part of his brain, was man able to build social patterns (or social
patterns were able to emerge out of biological co-activity). Was all this
"planned" before it happened? 

[Platt]
All based we are told on natural laws which somehow respond to mathematical
formulations. Please explain. Coincidence? Luck? Oops?

[Arlo]
>From our perspective, serendipity to be sure. But again I ask, was all this
"planned" before it happened? That seems to be the fault-line we are
straddling. As for mathematical formulations, I can't explain and defer to Case
(if he's still eavesdropping). 

And let me ask you a side question. If all this is a preplanned design, what
does it mean when we (humans) drive a species (flower, whale, bird, whatever)
into extinction? Is that, too, preplanned? Are we destroying God's design when
we do so? Or do the other parts of the design exist only to service us?

I ask this, because it would seem to me, that a belief in a preplanned designed
would engender more respect for the design that it appears to. Religious people
should be among the most vocal in stewardship and protection of God's design.
Why is it always the other way around (seemingly)? 

Actually, what's quite telling here, is that Zen Buddhism and Native American
spirituality, the same ethos that Pirsig uses to develop Quality, are also the
most protective and respectful of "the design". While ethos steeped heavily in
S/O dominance tend to be the most destructive of "the design". If Pirsig likens
Quality to the Buddha, the Tao, and finds strong resonance in Native American
spirituality and life, and these are all ethical systems that value respect for
"being part of the world", shouldn't this be something we consider as quite
important?