Hi Mark, As much as you, or anyone else for that matter, seems to want to do otherwise, we can only ever discuss static definitions and analogies of Dynamic Quality and not Dynamic Quality itself. Dynamic Quality isn't anything so whatever we use to describe it is ultimately static and therefore not Dynamic Quality. We can even pretend that this isn't the case as you have appeared to argue on occasion, but that doesn't change the fact that when you talk about Dynamic Quality you are using static ideas which are not Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality cannot be 'captured' in a static concept because words don't exhaust it.
It seems to me that you are trying to see what I am saying, and agree based on experience, that what I am saying is correct. But then the conclusion you are drawing from what I am saying, you do not appear to like or see the quality in it. "If everything is static quality", you seem to say.. "then that appears to be a very sad existence indeed." The MOQ is a guide to life. How does saying that every thing is static quality improve someone's life? While I am saying that every thing is static quality, Dynamic Quality still exists. Static quality without the betterness which comes as a result of Dynamic Quality, is just old age, suffering and death. But that understanding; that every thing is eventually old age, suffering and death is an important one. In fact this is what Buddhism's Four Noble Truths are all about: 1. Suffering(static quality) exists. 2. Suffering(static quality) exists because we(our intellectual patterns) are attached to it. 3. Suffering(static quality) can cease (Dynamic Quality exists) 4. A path exists for free yourself from suffering(static quality). How do we kill intellectual patterns? As I said earlier, different people have different answers to that question. Druggies, take drugs, extreme sports people put their lives at risk(so it's all very immediate and biological) and Zen people get things 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. 'Torments of the mind' is of course intellectual suffering and therefore; intellectual static quality. What's on your mind right now? I'm sure if you sit down in a room quietly your mind will tell you. And the more you sit, over time, the quieter your mind becomes. Your mind brings up the same thing over and over and over again and you think about the same thing over and over and over again. This is the mind 'perfecting' what's in it. Eventually, with little to feed it, the mind stops. The mind stopping in this way leaves nothing but Dynamic Quality. > [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. Everyone experiences this 'vague sense of he knows not why' and that is Dynamic Quality. When you vaguely sense that something is better but you do not know why; that is Dynamic Quality. > [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. It's impossible to discuss Dynamic Quality in the way you suggest because the only way to do that, as I have already said, and you agreed, is through the use of static quality. Words are static quality. > [Mark] > It can be useful to conceive of everything as an analogy. I believe > that Pirsig takes this stance at times. Either everything is an analogy or it isn't. Which is it? >> 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. Someone's 'perspective' is someone's static interpretation of Dynamic Quality. But this is not Dynamic Quality itself. Dynamic Quality isn't static quality. >> >>> [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. >> If things are already perfect then how can anything get better? Why bother even talking to me now? Why even get out of bed in the morning? 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
