Nate wrote:
I'm on vacation this week so I have a little extra time for
things like reading the Bhagavad-Gita and throwing these ideas back and forth.
Sure do love that you found that Salinger excerpt. I forgot about that one.
Which story was that?
I see what you're saying about the Structure/Improvisation relationship. And I do think that structure is just as teleologically driven (right word choice?) as Improvisation for the reasons we've stated. So in the age of empire, it makes sense to say Just Be. And, as you argue, there is surely a counter-current whereby one must also be eating of the Tree of Abstraction or else drift into anarchy. That said, I love the fact that the God of scripture seems to have a feeling of affection for Life that goes beyond a mere prescription for balance. Whether it's God's preference for Abel's sacrifice over Cain's; crazy Jacob over responsible Esau, or Jesus saying that children hold the key to the kingdom; when push comes to shove, God of scripture seems to prefer the Lord of the Flies to Towers of Babel; anarchy to civilization. But what if Love is not on one side or the other, but is, as Sam Lewis would say, Deep Magic? I get what you're saying about selfless love tending to be more abstracted than spleenish desire for babies and boobs, but maybe that doesn't have to be so? Maybe the difference between Krishna and Jesus is that Krishna says that we must free ourselves from attachment so that we can see clearly and thereby be humane to one another, while Jesus had an intrinsic (spleenish?) attachment to and empathy with the unattractive. In this light, Love would seem to humanize the spleen while at the same time subverting the empire.
If that's so, then the two trees really aren't enough. Life's better than Knowledge, but both are necessary, but neither are enough. Maybe love is the force behind the Big Bang.
I see what you're saying about the Structure/Improvisation relationship. And I do think that structure is just as teleologically driven (right word choice?) as Improvisation for the reasons we've stated. So in the age of empire, it makes sense to say Just Be. And, as you argue, there is surely a counter-current whereby one must also be eating of the Tree of Abstraction or else drift into anarchy. That said, I love the fact that the God of scripture seems to have a feeling of affection for Life that goes beyond a mere prescription for balance. Whether it's God's preference for Abel's sacrifice over Cain's; crazy Jacob over responsible Esau, or Jesus saying that children hold the key to the kingdom; when push comes to shove, God of scripture seems to prefer the Lord of the Flies to Towers of Babel; anarchy to civilization. But what if Love is not on one side or the other, but is, as Sam Lewis would say, Deep Magic? I get what you're saying about selfless love tending to be more abstracted than spleenish desire for babies and boobs, but maybe that doesn't have to be so? Maybe the difference between Krishna and Jesus is that Krishna says that we must free ourselves from attachment so that we can see clearly and thereby be humane to one another, while Jesus had an intrinsic (spleenish?) attachment to and empathy with the unattractive. In this light, Love would seem to humanize the spleen while at the same time subverting the empire.
If that's so, then the two trees really aren't enough. Life's better than Knowledge, but both are necessary, but neither are enough. Maybe love is the force behind the Big Bang.
********
Yeah... Salinger's
story is called Teddy. Teleology is
right on. And I certainly gravitate
towards the anti-institutional stories in Scripture. They stand out, however, because the
background is a litany of law and structures.
Jesus was a radical, obliterating the thrust of the OT. That's what makes him so likable. He not only smashed an old paradigm, but
dynamically tried to establish a new one.
I like the idea that when push comes to shove, err on the
side of anarchy rather than civilization.
I would venture to say, Love rather than Justice. Kindness rather than Fairness. I've used this illustration before, but I see
a moral parallel to Newton vs. Quantum physics.
95% of the time, Newtons laws work just fine taking care of the vast
majority of decisions and actions. It's
only in the margins usually the macro or micro that we need to use Quantum
physics to make sense of things. The
parallel to morals is that the law works 95% of the time. Don't steal.
Don't lie. Don't murder. Don't oppress. All those things we learned in kindergarten
also apply. Put things back from where
you got them. Don't use more than you
need. Share. Don't cut in line. Don't fight.
But then there are all those times we find ourselves where the law just
doesn't quite fit the reality. We need
to think in quantum morality. Sin
boldly. When push comes to shove, choose
Life.
Pirsig came to a parallel complexity of how to fit Love in
the system. Like most religions and
philosophies, some sort of trinity always rears its head. For Pirsig, there was something behind the
dynamic reality and static reality. This
was his Quality, the pre-intellectual Reality that is behind everything. But he couldn’t help noticing the kinship
dynamic had with quality and thus he would capitalize Dynamic quality. I think because he believed the dynamic first
comes from Quality, and then the static shapes and sustains it. I believe this is directly related to the
huge fight in the church centuries ago when there was disagreement whether the
Spirit flowed from the Father and not the Son or from both.
I think what this would bear on the discussion of Love, is
that, depending on your semantics, Love could be the source of the Big Bang and
everything else. Pirsig’s Quality, in
other words. Life, then would have a ‘closer’
connection with love since it would ‘flow’ from Love and then ‘beget’ Knowledge.
Oh, and I really like “spleenish attachment to and empathy
with the unattractive.” I need more of
that.
No comments:
Post a Comment