Hi David, Thanks for your post. I have some comments below. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:13 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
[Mark] I would say that static quality is all around you, it is not all around me. I do not see anything to kill. If you are talking about torments of the mind, then I believe your Zen approach may help that and perhaps this is a kill process. > > 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". [Mark] Yes, your logic seems to be good. I am not sure what you mean by undefined betterness since that is a definition. If you mean betterness but that we do not know why, then I would have to disagree with you. I realize that you are pointing at something with the term undefined, but I have yet to grasp that. >> 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] I do not think we are discussing the static definition of Dynamic Quality, but Dynamic Quality itself. There is a difference. I fully understand that the words are not the thing. I like your concept of pulling, and have also presented that as a way to view dyanamic quality. I believe that Ham has a similar analogy in his ontology of essence. >> [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] OK, I am fine by that. >> >> [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. [Mark] It can be useful to conceive of everything as an analogy. I believe that Pirsig takes this stance at times. > >> > 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] I would say it comes from perspective, but this may be the same as your killing. > >> [Mark] >> Yes, I fully comprehend what you are pointing at. How do you get out >> of that creation? > Through getting things perfect. [Mark] Things are already perfect, imho. 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
