Marco, Roger, Rich and assorted Davids
DAVID_ATHERFOLD wrote
> The caveman who decided to try planting food where HE wanted it
> instead of searching for it was exhibiting Dynamic quality. Once he'd
> done it, figured out the rules, (Static Latching) he was in a better
> quality situation.
Which succintly captures the balance between static and dynamic which is itself as
ancient as the universe. You see the "betterness" you capture it then you use it to
propell yourself to even better betterness.
> All obvious stuff.
Right, but we've got to start somewhere.
> Can this be applied at a personal level - well yes but people have
> much more variation than societies. I know people who are in a high
> quality situation (measured by their own feelings) in an almost 100%
> static environment. Go to work, untaxing job, get money, go to pub,
> watch soaps on TV, go to the soccer match, sex on a Friday night. Low
> stress perfectly happy and content. I know others who would be driven
> to suicide by this routine.
It's definitely different for different people. Bo's warnings about the dangers of too
much static are true enough, but we're not all aging Norwegians;-) An excess of static
is definitely the problem in my life and I imagine in most others.
> OR you can make the dynamic leap to free yourself from the static
> behaviour of "always looking for something better". For many people
> this latch results in a very low quality situation - constant
> dissatisfaction with the NOW.
Right again, too much change is static too. Basically there is no definition of static
or dynamic, change can be static, stability dynamic. Even dancing naked round bonfires
can get kinda old after all while. It all depends on your initial static patterns.
> The real life person who causes a dynamic shift in static values of the
> intellect or of society (as opposed to his own values) does not necessarily
> end up in a high quality situation himself (Jesus, Van Gogh, Mozart,
> Galileo etc.)
> I believe the Buddha made it. I hope Phaedrus has.
See your point but I'm not so sure that they would all agree with you entirely on
that. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen. Perhaps they would have considered
their lives worse had they not pursued the Dynamic Quality that they saw.
And another newcomer Marco wrote:
>First, the knowledge of the evolutionary nature of the universe, as Pirsig
>has evidenced in Lila.
>We know that Pirsig has defined the weight of past experiences as an immune
>system, and we know that it is moral that a new idea modifies the status
>quo, so we can be ready to face new experiences.
Indeed, sometimes just acknowledging and understanding the process of evolution makes
it easier to handle.
David B wrote:
>this is just one guy's opinion. But I think the dearth of
>substantial ideas is pretty obvious. And where is all the anger coming
>from? Does this topic upset people? Is it something I've said? We've got
>ten days left. Let's put it out on the table. What's going on here?
I'm also surprised because I thought this would be an easy, lighter topic. I knew the
skientific hard-heads would ignore it, but I thought it would bring out new ideas that
had previously been stifled by too much ungrounded theorizing. But actually it has
turned out to be harder than I anticipated.
I've found that the prescription "obtain dynamic and static at the same time" is
accurate but not very practical. This was coldly brought to light in Rocky's
"every-American-man" post. You couldn't just blab some nice mystic verse in return to
that, obviously we need a practical answer. Roger seemed to have it in his wonderful
post on attending to everyday life. I think he captured the essence of motorcycle
maintenance in that and applied it creatively for working people.
Marco seems also to be onto the same thing
>If you consider your job, the kiss for
>your wife every morning, the games with your children, the lunches in family
>as a ritual, you do not feel that weight, and you do not need time for
>yourself: every your moment is time for yourself, even if it's spent in
>routine activities. And every your RTA moment can be the right one to
>become unexpectedly a moment for a dynamic increase for yourself.
I felt that David B's investigations into dhyana were the most intriguing path this
month though. Ironically I was the one lecturing everyone on paying attention to chap
30, but I was really refering to the arete "rt" journey in which dynamic is found
through the perfection of static. I hadn't paid so much attention to dhyana. But going
back to the book it's right there preceding the "rt" section.
Been thinking about Roger's post and dhyana and wondering how to reconcile the two. It
seems that while attention to the details of everyday life is clearly right, first, it
isn't entirely practical - how can you have time to give your full attention to work
and family and leisure and social issues and your intellect and your health and your
soul ..... ? I think that was the problem more than the question of how to approach
each of these individually. And second, it's almost too prescriptive - it proposes a
kind of "busyness" or "fullness" that is much admired in our culture, yet contrary to
Zen. It's not that Roger was in any way wrong, it just wasn't quite the full story.
So after thinking all month I've come to the tentative conclusion that the traditional
Zen practices must still be maintained in addition to correct attention to balancing
every day. There must be a time set aside for nothingness. If this isn't done then it
is far too easy to fall off the path or mistake it for something else. You have to
stop and empty out now and again to make sure you're on the right path. Basically that
involves sitting and doing nothing or going away somewhere quiet and doing nothing.
It's very common for Western students of mysticism to ignore the importance of
meditation and retreats, even though they are a common element of Eastern practices.
Or if they do do them they get it wrong - retreats are filled with "activities" so the
participants don't get bored, meditation is ruined with sickly music and imagry. But
the whole point of meditation is to achieve nothingness - of course that's rather
dull. If it isn't boring, it isn't Buddhism, as they say. I suppose we ignore these
things because we don't see any reason in them. We dismiss traditional practices as
superstition that we in our enlightenment can do without them. After all if we can
understand the theory behind Zen why bother with the practice? But actually that's
like saying you can swim because you've read a book about it.
Rich
>Here are three methods of maintaining static/dynamic harmony:
>
>1) Meditation
>2) Metaphysics
>3) Marijuana
After my thinking this month, the first is a must (and I mean traditional zazen
meditation), the second is only necessary if you're a geek and can't help it. There
should also be something in there about care and attention - how about Motorcycle
Maintenance (fits with the "M" thing you got going here). Haven't even seriously
considered the used of drugs as a method though your posts suggest a lot of serious
inquiry has gone into it. I shall have to do some research on that one.
And stop cross-posting.
David B
>C'mon people! Can we please have a little respect for coherence and
>relevance? Are we not philosophers?
Not only are we philosophers we are sophists. The quality of the rhetoric matters. The
dialog should be coherent, relevant, well written, inspiring, intriguing, pleasing to
the writers and to the audience.
Diana
ps Happy birthday to us
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
