Hi David, I believe I understand what you are proposing, it does not coincide exactly with the way that I see and use MoQ. I am not quite sure how you progress from where you are with this at this point. I will try to explain what my view is as I respond to your questions and statements below.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:12 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > The first division of the MOQ distinguishes between static quality and > Dynamic Quality. Naturally, if it makes a distinction between the two, it > says that these two things are fundamentally different. As it is the first > division of the MOQ, also one would expect it to be important no? As I've > said previously. The MOQ is a guide to life. Metaphysics, is a bunch of > ideas that fundamentally describe reality. The MOQ explains reality and does > it so beautifully that you can see how things work and then from that; make > things better. > > If you honestly believe, as you've said previously, that everything is > already 'perfect' then I have nothing more to say to you. If someone thinks > that everything is perfect then that person is no longer actively following > any sort of 'undefined betterness'. In other words, you no longer want to > become a better person. Even the most enlightened of people on this planet > can't help but do something to change reality and thus move it in a direction > for the better or worse. Which are you? [Mark] Hmmm... quite a dilemma you present with your multiple choice question above. I would have to say that I am the second if these are my only choices. I believe you are misinterpreting what I have stated. Perhaps this is through your prism of what is static and what is dynamic, I'm not sure. As I stated, every moment is perfect, because it cannot be any other way. This does not mean that I do not spend the moment trying to be a better person. It could be a happy moment or a sad moment, doesn't matter. So, to reiterate, every moment is perfect in and of itself. To say that it is not perfect implies that it can be something else, which it obviously cannot. I think if you pay attention to the moment through techniques such as mindfulness, you will come to the same conclusion. You may also see dynamic quality for what it is that way (in my opinion of course). How is one to follow something that is undefined? This just doesn't quite make sense to me. What do you do to follow it? Also, how does one change reality. It is what it is. Sure, we can plan for something good, but it is still reality when it happens. It would seem that Mary thinks that reality is the way things should be. But, that is another subject altogether. > > [David] > > Yes, this does make sense however I think that the word dynamic can confuse > things where the MOQ brings clarity. If you mean that Dynamic Quality is > fundamental and is the source of all things then I agree. Every thing is > static quality. Including your reading my posts and my writing this one. > All we can say about Dynamic Quality is that it makes things better. How it > makes things better we cannot say because if we do then we are defining the > undefinable. [Mark] I don't think that I am confused (but then how would I know?). Everything is not static quality. It becomes static when it is symbolized. As you are falling asleep, is that static? When you are amazed at something you do not understand, is that static? When you feel dynamic quality is leading the way, is that static? Can you make a symbolic representation of dynamic quality? Sure we have words, but those are not what they represent. What they represent is dynamic. Even the act of creating a symbol such as a word is dynamic. It all happens in the present. Dynamic Quality is the world as we live it, right now. > > > We can imagine that the present moment is complete. But if it is complete > then why say anything? Why talk to me now? What do you mean by complete > anyway? I think when we say that something isn't 'complete' we mean to say > that it has low quality. Things with low quality grate on our conscience. > Things with high quality no longer grate. It is only through the perfection > of things that we can kill static quality. [Mark] Again this doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, it is complete, once past it is done. The completeness of the moment could be me talking to you. If it were not complete, I suppose it could be considered low quality, but such a thing is impossible. How can one not complete each moment? How can it be more than what it is? In the moment, things could grate, that does not make them incomplete. It seems as if you think the moment can be other than it is. Again, that just doesn't make sense. It is illogical. > > The MOQ is more than simply Dynamic Quality. As I find myself constantly > saying. Static quality is every thing. Your life, Mark, is static quality. > Now that I'm beginning to see your viewpoint more clearly I can imagine you > now pointing to Dynamic Quality and saying that it is your life. But Dynamic > Quality is not yours or any one else's or any thing at all. Dynamic Quality > is nothing. If you say Dynamic Quality is yours then that is saying Dynamic > Quality is something static and Dynamic Quality isn't anything. [Mark] If everything was symbolic or done with words, then yes, it would all be static. You have no idea all the things that are happening to you right now, from every heart beat, to the intellect which is going on underneath what you are concentrating on. You cannot grasp the incredible intricacy of everything and its synchronicity. The forefront of our thoughts could not possibly capture that. How can all these things be static, if you don't even know what they are? If everything was static, you would simply be a word on a page without any consciousness, for ever and ever. > > > Suffering is static quality. Reading this post is static quality. Zen isn't > about ignoring that everything is static quality. It is about facing it, > head on, and getting it perfect, so that it no longer grates on ones > conscience. Suffering is believing the illusion is real. Suffering is believing that this is all static. Yes, it is about facing it head on, not about condensing it to some kind of static phenomenon (even though such condensation is dynamic quality is action). Perfection does not mean to have a conscious which is free from trouble, such a thing is not possible unless you are completely detached from the world. Certainly drugs can do that for a short while, but being drugged up is not a form of perfection. Even Buddha traveled every day to teach and help people since it grated on his consciousness that people did not know about suffering or how to get out of it. You may have an unrealistic picture of what you are trying to achieve. > > > Zen is all about perfection; being in the present is a result of perfection. > If you do anything for the first time your conscience will be talking and > mechanically thinking about how to do it and 'very loud'. But over time, if > you care about that thing, and if you do that same thing over and over and > over again, your mind will quiet down and without even really meaning to at > all, you will become that thing. It's at this point someone is said to have > perfected something. That is they are 'enlightened'. [Mark] Yes, now we are getting somewhere. Being in the present is not necessarily a result of perfection, because it happens to us all the time, but at least you got the present part. According to the Zen philosopher D.T. Suzuki, the Zen mind is the beginner's mind. That is, one should do things as if for the first time. This will dispel your static-ness. What he says makes perfect sense, once you know what Zen means. One should not treat motorcycles like some kind of strange and intimidating thing, because while one is actively maintaining them, the rider and the motorcycle are literally one. Pooff! No more static-ness. Pirsig would be proud. > > Ignoring something by doing something else, is not Dynamic Quality and not > fine. [Mark] It would appear that you are ascribing to the societal level here by saying it is not fine. Not fine for whom? We tend towards Quality, dynamically. Are you saying that some things that we do are against Quality? If this is true, we must be more powerful than Quality. In fact, by this sense, Quality is something separate from us. I do not think it is useful to think this to be the case, else-wise Quality turns into God as it is taught in school. Quality is our personal relationship with the cosmos, just as God should be, not some autocratic dictator, who will send you to hell. > > > Zen isn't about actively 'forcing' the mind to stop. That is called 'doing > something'. Zen is about 'doing nothing'. The mind stopping is the result > of the mind perfecting whatever is on it as I've described above. [Mark] Zen is not about doing nothing. Do you think that Zen masters just sit around doing nothing? I am not sure what literature you are reading, but mind stopping sounds like some kind of new age religion. When the mind is on something, it is perfectly so. One just has to realize that. Zen, or Ch´ an as it was originally called during the first millennium is about the "ordinary mind", you have it, I have it. Zen has not changed since then. > > >> [mark] >> I hope I have convinced you otherwise. Don't listen to my words, >> listen to what I say. > > I do. And as much as you or I or anyone else wish otherwise what you are > saying is static quality. [Mark] No, what you are reading is static quality. > > > Unfortunately, no. Winking is static quality and not Dynamic Quality. [Mark] Unfortunately, the act of winking is about as dynamic as it gets. > >> [Mark] >> I don't think a personal perspective is static as it is happening. If >> I feel fear, that is pretty dynamic to me. > > There is that dynamic word again. If you mean Dynamic Quality then no, fear > is not Dynamic Quality. [Mark] I am not talking about the word, I am talking about fear. Not the fear I had yesterday, the fear I have right now, even before I can make a word of it. I could be half way out of the house before I realize that I am fearful. > >> [Mark] >> I get out of bed for another perfect moment. How about you? > > To me that seems to be a rather sad existence. To be experiencing just one > long monotonous high of perfection your entire life? The highs and lows of > life are what makes each just as valuable as the other. [Mark] I am not talking about a monotonous high, I am talking about living in the moment. It could be a terribly low point, but at least I am aware of it, and not thinking that I should not be there. No matter where you go, there you are. Wishing you were somewhere else will never help. That is not to say that you can't experience moments somewhere else at another time. I hope this makes more sense to you. I can talk about this all day, so it is my pleasure. 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
