Hi Mark, > [Mark] > I understand this form of argument and I am not sure where it leads. > The point is to escape it and progress MoQ.
How do we escape static quality? It is all around us. It is everywhere. I think that we can escape static quality by killing it. Drug addicts take drugs to kill static patterns and experience Dynamic Quality. Extreme Sports enthusiasts put their lives at risk to kill static patterns. Zen folk kill static patterns by getting them perfect. Analogies are intellectual patterns of value. Every idea is an analogy. Therefore analogies are static quality. You can even rank analogies based on how well they cohere with experience. You can always say whether one thing is better than another so you can always say whether one analogy is better than another. The best analogy I know for Dynamic Quality apart from the words themselves is that Dynamic Quality is "undefined betterness". > 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. Dynamic Quality is not the interplay or juxtaposition of two things. Such a definition of Dynamic Quality is very static and therefore not Dynamic Quality. The best of your three words above to describe Dynamic Quality would be force however that can mean to both 'push' and 'pull'. Dynamic Quality isn't pushing behind something; if anything, things are pulled, or rather, they value undefined betterness. > [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). The misunderstanding here seems to have come from my use of the word 'reality'. By reality I mean experience. > > [Mark] > Yes, I agree. Nihilism reality 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. How can we say anything about anything if definitions rely on other definitions? Isn't then, everything an analogy? What are analogies? Analogies are intellectual patterns of value. It's even there in the name. The 'patterns' are created by the other analogies. > > 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. Hopefully the above writing will shed some more light on this question. > [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. > Where does that realisation come from? I think that it comes from the killing of static patterns to reveal the Dynamic Quality that is there all along. > [Mark] > Yes, I fully comprehend what you are pointing at. How do you get out > of that creation? Through getting things perfect. Thanks Mark, -David. 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
