[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) - side question for Platt and Arlo

[Heather Perella]

Platt and Arlo,

Arlo and Platt, two questions.
     What do you think Zen is and how does Zen fit
into MoQ?  
     Why do you think Pirsig included Amerindians in
Lila?

This would help me understand more where you two are
going with this dialogue.

thanks.

SA



> > [Platt]
> > I don't see much about an ethical system in the
> above, and no mention 
> > of an 8-fold path. I have read ZMM. That's why I
> asked. I thought I 
> > missed something. Apparently not.
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > While Pirsig does not mention the term "Eight Fold
> Path", it 
> > obviously underlies his thinking, as made clear
> several times in his 
> > words. In any event, Pirsig pairs an understanding
> of Quality tightly 
> > with the Buddha, the Tao and in LILA with Native
> American culture. As 
> > far as I know, he has made no ties with
> "Judeo-Christian ethics". 
> > Again I propose a reason for this might be that
> these "belief 
> > systems" are not mired in two-thousand years of
> S/O-dominant culture, 
> > and as such represent Quality in a clear way.
> 
> I assume S/O intellect was the same intellect that
> helped early man
> find food, shelter and clothing -- as described by
> Pirsig. I also
> assume that most ancient cultures were God-driven to
> one extent or another, and
> that it was only with the rise of science that God
> was driven out from
> modern cultures of both East and West. Didn't Indian
> cultures, for instance,
> believe in many Gods? 
> 
> > [Platt]
> > Ah, the issue of Truth. We certainly act as if
> there is Truth, such 
> > as the assertion that "Any symbolic representation
> will ultimately be 
> > incomplete." Is that statement True, partially
> True, sometimes True, 
> > or what? Looks like we might be getting involved
> in logical absurdities.
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > You always act like this is some shockingly new
> revelation. Perhaps 
> > you should spend more time contemplating Zen, as
> did Pirsig.
> 
> Nothing new about paradoxes. I do find them
> fascinating, however. Like
> the assertion, "There are no absolutes."
>  
> > [Platt]
> > Well, since it's all metaphors we can only guess
> about Pirsig's 
> > Truth. In one instance he considers it good, in
> another he considers 
> > it impractical in the modern world.
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > You seem to looking for an externally imposed
> "objective" Truth.
> 
> Aren't we all? 
> 
> > [Platt]
> > That individual rights come from God, not other
> men.
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > See, that's scary to me. Because "God" tends to be
> historically 
> > preferential. I mean, the Great Founders had no
> problem with slavery. 
> > Their "God", apparently, only granted these rights
> to a particular 
> > group of people. It was not until much later,
> using reason and 
> > secular humanistic foundations, that we've learned
> to apply this 
> > "right" to all people, regardless of faith, not
> because some 
> > extracorporeal entity "said so", but because it we
> know from reason 
> > that it is "better". The "social contract" is
> always an agreement 
> > among people, "God" was only used as an authority
> (and a poor one, 
> > oftentimes) and enforcer.
> 
> Refer to my remarks in another post about why I
> consider "other people" scary
> when it comes to establishing and protecting
> individual rights.
> 
> > [Platt]
> > Yes. So reverting to ancient cultures such as
> those of the East and 
> > Indians may not be all some think it's cracked up
> to be.
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > As always, we should take the Good and scrap the
> bad. Pirsig 
> > highlights much, much Good we should learn and
> adopt from these 
> > non-S/O cultures. Again, there is a reason why he
> ends LILA with a 
> > recognition that Indians got it right all along.
> Theirs was not an 
> > S/O culture. And so in tossing off our own S/O
> chains, we should look 
> > to them, and the Zen Buddhists, and other non-S/O
> cultures for 
> > sign-posts and an understanding of what non-S/O
> Quality is (which is 
> > just what Pirsig did).
> 
> Guess we have to have a discussion of what is an S/O
> culture and when and where
> it became dominant.
> 
> > [Arlo had asked]
> > 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)?
> 
> Not being God I cannot tell you whether the design
> includes those who
> question and want to change it or not. It's possible
> the design is designed
> to self-destruct.
>  
> > 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?
> > 
> > [Platt]
> > IMO the environmental movement is vastly overblown
> with the motive of 
> > gaining control of people's lives, the ancient
> game of grabbing for 
> > power, always in the name of the "public good."
> > 
> > [Arlo]
> > This is not what I asked. I asked, why do those
> who argue for 
> > "design" seem the least concerned with protecting
> and respecting that 
> > "design"? If it IS all "design", as you yourself
> claim to believe it 
> > to be, then what is the morality of not only
> passively observing 
> > parts of that design destroyed, but also actively
> encouraging it? 
> > This would seem to me to evidence a belief that
> while it is a 
> > "design", we are the only part of it that really
> matter, the rest 
> > exists to service us. Is that wrong?
> 
> See above about the possibility of a
> self-destructive design. We know
> our world will be extinguished someday.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265