Hi David, Thanks for the post. I agree with you in terms of discussion, that is not what I was pointing at. Yes, when we share things in this way, it is through static symbolism. There are also ways of sharing things in a dynamic fashion. One must not confuse the words for what they represent. The ever present moment is dynamic. Even remembering something happens in the moment, and different every time. Much as some speak of mysticism as something strange, the ever present is mysticism in action. This moment can even be considered to be before the intellectualization, if that make understanding what I am talking about. However, even the act of intellectualization is dynamic quality. As I was reading your post and writing this one, I was in the presence of dynamic quality.
It may be that some are not tuned to recognize this, and feel they are a little behind the present. This is impossible, we are never in the past and never in the future. We are at the leading edge at all times. I will agree with your sense of "capture" since words are not what they represent, but analogies of something undefinable. As you speak with words, the act is dynamic, but the result is static. I hope this makes sense. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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." [Mark] If we do not realize that we live in the present, then I would say that such living may be incomplete. There is nothing we can do about living in the present, so why not realize it. So, what may be sad is thinking a present moment as not complete in itself. Of course, sad is a quality judgement that I can only feel for myself. I cannot project such a thing, but I can encourage you to wake up. > > > The MOQ is a guide to life. How does saying that every thing is static > quality improve someone's life? [Mark] Absolutely MoQ is about the dynamic present, nothing more than that. But such a thing is way more than enough as far as I am concerned. This is why it is appropriate to bring in Zen, since that is all that is about. > > 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). [Mark] Yes, the Noble truths you point at are an attempt to drop this illusion of static-ness. That is all I am point to as well. Of course Dynamic Quality exists, you are in it as you read this post. Sufferring is a result of the belief you are proposing that everything is static. > > 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] In my opinion, Zen is not about perfection, it is about being in the present. One can do that by skiing down a slope, or just sitting on a couch. Often for many, a distraction works the best, which is fine. > >> [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] I think I have described my interpretation of dynamic quality, it is available to anyone whether they like it or not. The only way to stop the mind is to let it go free. Zen is not about stopping the mind, it is about listening to the mind. How can you stop something that you cannot control? Is there a part of the brain that is in full control? If so, what is controlling that? By not perserverating on stopping the mind or trying to think differently, one becomes free of the mind. This is standard Zen as I understand it. It is also Taoism and Buddhism. Of course all three are related as branches on a tree. > >> [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] Many people do know why he knows, others think it is something special that needs a lot of work. The only work needed is to stop searching. Again, I am not sure how things can be better in the present. They are what they are. For things to be better would mean that the present is not enough. > >> [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] I hope I have convinced you otherwise. Don't listen to my words, listen to what I say. > >> [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? [Mark] Everything that is shared in words is an analogy. I suppose any symbolism would fit in here, not just words. If I wink as someone, that is pretty dynamic. > >>> 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] I don't think a personal perspective is static as it is happening. If I feel fear, that is pretty dynamic to me. > >>> >>>> [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? [Mark] I get out of bed for another perfect moment. How about 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
