[MD] Respect for the "Design" (Zen and All That)

[Arlo Bensinger]

In a previous post, buried in an avalanche of exchanged ideas, I had 
posed this question. It has to do with "design". It has to do with 
the notion that the complexity and beauty of life reveal evidence of 
a "design". Whether that "design" is purposeful, intentional or 
metaphorical, applied after the fact or existed since before 
existence itself, is not really the primary issue.

The issue is, "if" there is a "design", what does that mean about our 
relation to it?

[Arlo's question]
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?

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?

Furthermore, if the primary ethos Pirsig uses to descibe Quality, the 
Zen Buddhist, the Taoist and the Native American, are all much more 
historically respectful of "being part of the world", and are non-S/O 
dominant, isn't this "mystic" appreciation for "design", of "being 
part of the world", of not destroying the patterns around us, 
something to be considered as pretty important?

[End question]

Let me know add some specificity to this. Let's take roses and 
platypi. (Assume a metaphorical, non-sectarian read to "God")

The initial question, of course, is to ask whether the design 
intended these things from the beginning, or if they were unplanned 
remnants of a design that otherwise excluded them. Or more simply, 
did God mean to make roses and platypi? Can we infer from their 
existence that God meant to put them here?

Next question, if God meant to put roses and platypi on Earth, what 
does that say to a human ethical system that would destroy them to 
serve economic needs? Lest you argue that roses and platypi are not 
destined for extinction, let's consider certain species of butterfly 
and flora. Or did God mean to put them here only to service our 
needs? In the "design", are we the only patterns in the fabric that matter?

We know that Pirsig has been highly critical of Western culture for 
its adherence to an S/O foundation. In this S/O culture, the 
predominant view has been that "pretty as these patterns may be" they 
are here for the sole purpose of servicing "humans", and can be 
destroyed, manipulated, trashed and otherwise uncared for, especially 
if doing so produces economic or social gains for man. In non-S/O 
cultures, particularly those Pirsig uses as building blocks for 
Quality, Zen Buddhism, Taoism and Native American, the predominant 
view has been that these patterns deserve respect and protection. 
Perhaps this is so because, as Pirsig reminds us, non-S/O cultures 
are rooted in "being part of the world".

In ZMM, he tells us specifically that S/O cultures, although 
economically and technologically successful, have achieved this end 
at the expense of a non-S/O understanding of wo/man's role in the 
world. "And now he began to see for the first time the unbelievable 
magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and rule 
the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built 
empires of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of 
nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and 
wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of 
equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be a part of the 
world, and not an enemy of it."

If we do move towards non-S/O foundations, would not this same 
respect of "being part of the world" be part and parcel of this move?

Marsha's and Mark's recent posts about the Female and Male Spirits 
also could overlap this. In cultures where an unbalance of overly 
Male energies dominant, destructive power seems unrestrained. Little 
attention is paid to the nurturing role of the Female energy. Is 
Shiva that which removes us from the world, and Shakti that which 
returns us to the world?

Platt's primary response to this was "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."

This would appear to suggest that even though roses and platypi are 
designed by God, we can do what we want to them because the fabric is 
destined to be destroyed anyway. My question would then be, but why 
does this same nihilism not apply to how we should treat other 
humans? If the world is going to be destroyed, and that gives us 
carte blanche to destroy roses and platypi, why should I care about 
preserving human life?

Thoughts?

PS: SA, You had asked "What do you think Zen is and how does Zen fit 
into MoQ? Why do you think Pirsig included Amerindians in Lila?"

If you can find someone who says they can tell you what Zen is, they are lying.
If you can find someone who says they can't tell you what Zen is, 
they are lying.

It fits into the MOQ because it Pirsig returns to Zen repeatedly in 
both ZMM and LILA, and because...

Pirsig developed his thesis in LILA from the Native Americans, and 
ended it with an acknowledgement that they had gotten it right all 
along, because this culture (like Zen, Hindi and Taoist cultures) are 
non-S/O dominant, which is precisely what he was arguing "for". "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."