On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The analogy 'shines through in the present moment' is fine for Dynamic > Quality, but these analogies do not get at what Dynamic Quality is because > that's not Dynamic Quality. Even saying 'that's not Dynamic Quality' is not > Dynamic Quality.
[Mark] Yes, I agree with what you say, and that is the shortcoming of words. Often analogies or stories are better at imparting ones own concept. It is difficult to provide the proper insinuation through posts such as these. My intent is to point in a certain direction (metaphysically speaking). > > > I think that the MOQ is the best Metaphysics around and can improve anyone's > life. Beginning with understanding this first division. [Mark] You may be right, only time will tell. It will take some effort and appropriate rhetoric. > Yes that makes complete sense but you seem to be ignoring the fact that we > are static quality. It would be nice to think that somehow we can avoid > static quality but we cannot. Every thing is static quality. That is *the* > definition of static quality. > > When you call something Dynamic Quality you've just used a word. In fact your > whole sentence (As one is calling it Dynamic Quality, it is a dynamic process > without words) has created a you and a whole bunch of words describing > Dynamic Quality. This is all static quality. It would be nice to think that > we are somehow inextricably a 'part' of Dynamic Quality. Trick it, if it > isn't watching, so that we can have Dynamic Quality for ourselves. But if you > use that kind of thinking then you've turned Dynamic Quality into something > very static. You cannot grasp Dynamic Quality. For the same reason Zen > Masters call Zen useless Dynamic Quality is nothing! [Mark] Yes, indeed. I prefer not to take such a reductionist stance on what we term static quality, since is can be easily argued through words that words are static. There are many such reductionist views, such as claiming that everything we do is ultimately selfish. Perhaps all these things are logically true, but I do not like to make Quality subordinate to logic. In the same way, such logical reductionism diminishes MoQ. I believe this is why Pirsig speaks of spiritual rationalism. Such a thing tries to overcome these nihilistic reductions. Dynamic Quality could be considered nothing if that has meaning to you. The saying "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him", is similar to your Zen uselessness. This would be imparting the concept of Buddha to some historical figure, which is of course static. Buddhism does not present Buddha nature in that way. It works by way of stories or dialogues (Sutras) which are an alternative to Western Logic. I have found that Te-Shan (780-865 AD) to provide very dynamic rhetoric along the lines of what you say about Zen. Zen grew out of Taoism and Mahayana Buddism, and reached its peak in china before 1000 AD. There were some very influential teachers during that time, all of which may be interesting to you. Cheers, Mark > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
