Hi David, On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:34 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The MOQ is fundamentally mystic but, unlike Zen for instance, it says that > you cannot avoid static patterns and so they are still important. > > Pirsig sums this up in the last paragraph at the end of Lila: > > "Good is a noun... Of course the ultimate quality isn't a noun or an > adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole > Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." > > You may be pointing in a certain direction and I can see where you are > pointing however my 'point' is that your pointing is still static quality > just as with any other pointing including this pointing I am writing right > now.
[Mark] I understand this form of argument and I am not sure where it leads. The point is to escape it and progress MoQ. One way to do this is through stories or analogy. While such things can be considered static, what they represent is not. What they represent is up to the individual hearing the story, and such a thing is dynamic. One cannot point to a static symbology there, it is in the ever-present moment. During the reading of ZMM, I was on the motorcycle of the book, riding across America. The ever-present moment is dynamic. We tend to forget that this is how we live, how life unfolds. >> [Mark] >> You may be right, only time will tell. It will take some effort and >> appropriate rhetoric. > > Yes. The best rhetoric that I know is where every thing is defined as static > quality and Dynamic Quality is no thing. If Dynamic Quality is claimed to be > some such and such a thing then that destroys the first division of the MOQ. [Mark] How about if dynamic quality is the interplay? A force is really no thing, it does not exist outside the static representational objects that present it. You could say that by calling such a thing a force makes it static. However, I am just using a word for the static object behavior, and not what is causing it. What is causing it remains undefined. In this way, we can point towards things without creating the static. This is no different from using the words Dynamic Quality. Such words do not necessarily define, but point with the juxtaposition of the two words. >> [Mark previously] >> 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. >> > Logic is subordinate to quality in that it follows what harmonises with > reality. The statement that 'Everything we do is ultimately selfish' does not > cohere with reality. The MOQ would say that human beings have evolved to be > social people. In order to be social you cannot be selfish. [Mark] Well, I have had this argument (from both sides) many times. Yes, logic is subordinate to Quality. Therefore, one cannot say that Quality must remain undefined. That is just logic trying to encapsulate Quality. Quality can be defined or remain undefined. It all depends on how it expresses itself. An active thought is Quality in action (or is it inaction?). > > On the other hand saying that every thing is static quality does cohere with > reality. There is not a thing you can say which is not static quality, you > can only point to Dynamic Quality but that pointing is more static quality. [Mark] What we do is create reality in the intellect. We provide structures that have meaning. In this way, such a reality is not something that must be cohered to, it must cohere to our sense of meaning. When we create the concept of static quality, we cannot then make it dominant over such personal meaning. If we say that by "saying" we are static, then such a thing is a very narrow teleological loop which provides no meaning. B = A because A = B. The point is to create a wider mesh of understanding, this by creating a more encompassing structure. So while what you say may be true by definition, it is somewhat lacking in its extension (in my humble opinion, of course). > > Zen is often mistaken as nihilism. The whole 'nothing sacred' doctrine of Zen > is mistaken, especially by people coming at it from a Western perspective, to > mean that you can just do as you please, but this is not Zen at all. Zen > isn't nihilism or anything else definable. [Mark] Yes, I agree. Nihilism seems to be equated with meaninglessness. Zen is far from that. I am not sure what you mean by definable here. As I have stated before, there is not a thing that is ultimately definable. Definitions rely on other definitions. > >> 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. > > Yes, and I'm sure the words they use will be static quality as well. Just as > all of the words you and I have written above are static quality. Why do I > keep pointing you towards static quality? Because only when you see what > Dynamic Quality is not can you see what it is because static quality is > everything and Dynamic Quality isn't anything! [Mark] Me thinks you may be stuck in the concept of static quality. How does such a thing impart meaning to you? It seems like a closed loop without escape. That could be considered somewhat Nihilist. But, I obviously cannot read your mind, and that is just my simple interpretation of your post which you can re-adjust with dialogue. I do "understand" the mystical premise underlying what you state, but it may need expansion for me to grasp its personal importance. > > I sit daily and I do this because I know that this is the most direct way of > experiencing Dynamic Quality. The MOQ says that you can free yourself from > all these static patterns all around by getting them perfect. That is what > Zen is all about. It takes the most simple monotonous thing, sitting, and has > you do it over and over and over again until it becomes second nature and you > don't even have to think about it and it's gone. When you first sit, your > mind is like a clock ticking at 100 miles an hour on 100 different things. > But over time your mind slows down and eventually it stops. It's at this > point that one is said to be enlightened. [mark] Sitting is certainly a path towards enlightenment, but is not necessarily required. I like to "sit" as well. There are other techniques, such as experiencing your breathing without controlling it at all. Or, one can listen to one's thoughts as something happening to oneself, being aware of what is beneath. Some people become enlightened by a hit on the head. In early Zen, the "ground" was considered as the "ordinary mind" which we all have and was called Ch´ an (not Zen). Enlightenment in this discipline is a shift in perspective (an analogy of course). It cannot be arrived at through knowledge, although knowledge can provide a path to walk along. Once enlightened, you mind can be ticking at 100 miles per hour, and it doesn't matter. The concept of stopping the mind may not be useful for everyone. There is really nothing to stop in my opinion, only something to realize. > > But then even if I sit for that reason then that is not 'just sitting' and > not Dynamic Quality. See? [Mark] Yes, I fully comprehend what you are pointing at. How do you get out of that creation? 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
