Hi David, Thanks for your post, and I am in agreement with it. More below.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Pirsig identifies two main opponents of the MOQ in the first part of Lila. > The Mystics [Of which you are a part Mark] and the logical positivists. > > To the Mystics he writes and I paraphrase.. > > "Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he considered the mystics more > formidable. Mystics will tell you that once you have opened the door to > metaphysics you can say good-bye to any genuine understanding of reality. > Quality doesn't have to be defined.. You understand it without definition, > ahead of definition.. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic > sense, a degenerate activity. But.. a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of > degeneracy is degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are > made of.. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person > who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical > meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born = and to whose birth no thought > has been given." > > The MOQ is more than a mystical statement. The MOQ is not Zen. Ultimately > the MOQ agrees with you. It says that you cannot define something, but as > Pirsig says above - there is not a person alive who hasn't defined something. > Good is a noun. So let's be the best people we can. Including get the best > understanding of the MOQ we can... Good is a noun. > > The MOQ actually explains how the universe, including yours, mine and > everyone else's life, works. We all use words based on how good they are at > describing things. > > For instance what is it about 'mindfulness' that makes it work? What does it > mean to not be mindful? When you're not mindful I think that means you're not > 'just doing' what you're doing. Your mind is 'somewhere else'. What to be > mindful means, in practice, is to bring your mind and attention back to what > your doing and to 'just do it'. And if you do this over and over, the more > 'in the moment' you are, and eventually, your mind drops away and you can be > said to have 'become' the thing which you are doing. It is through the > perfection of this mindful practice that one is said to be enlightened. > > It is through this understanding of static quality. Through the acceptance of > it - that it exists, that we are able to deal with it honestly and the best > we can and ultimately, through perfecting that quality, reveal the Dynamic > Quality that was there all along.. > [Mark] Yes, I agree, first we must see static for what it is, and I think Pirsig presents this very well. This is one reason why he brings up the concept of subject object metaphysics. If we look only at these things, then we miss most of what is going on. Such stuck-ness in objects is a sad oversimplification of life, which it would appear many are prolonging. Mindfulness is a technique, as you say. Once practiced and practiced, the techniques disappears and is replaced with a second nature. Mindfulness (in my understanding) takes the focus out of the object, and puts in on the action. When one acts on an object, this action is actually happening from both sides, since the object is also acting on you. Therefore, in this action, there is a midpoint (if you will) where the action does not belong to either you or the object; it is neutral. At this point, there is no subject and no object. Living in that neutral zone, can been called living in the moment. However, even the term "living in the moment" is misleading, since "the moment" cannot be defined. This whole NOW concept has been adulterated to the point of being just a "feel good" thing. Living in the moment has got nothing to do with time. I would not call myself a mystic by any means. I do not find myself in Rapture. My personally meaningful insights are arrived at through logical thinking. There are jumps that I cannot explain in such logic, and then I have to backtrack to explain the missing logic (to myself). The brain works in mysterious ways that we have not even begun to unravel in a way for us to agree on. The next hundred years should be very exciting. Perhaps this whole notion of the Mystic is somewhat misleading, and way too Grand. I could say that I have had experiences (sometimes with a little help from a chemical or two in the distant past), which happen suddenly and seem strange. Even in those experiences everything seems to make sense. There is just an extreme feeling of relief. This intense feeling of relief is the closest I can come to describing such experiences. There seems to be a degree of clarity which has no intellectual component. Perhaps it is the right side of the brain taking over, who knows. Another way I have tried to describe it is the feeling I get when I suddenly enter a vast cave that is filled with beautiful stalagmites and stalactites. I can say I have had such feelings when I enter an enormous ornate cathedral, perhaps that is why they build such religious structures that way. Of course after entering the cave such feelings disappear as soon as I become analytical. Anyway, this type of sharing is nonsense and probably out of place. > >[David] > I won't. The MOQ is good at reminding us what Dynamic Quality isn't. It's > also good at pointing the way towards it - through the perfection of static > quality. The MOQ encapsulates both the Mystic view and the Logical > Positivist view into one Metaphysical system. > [Mark] Yes, I would agree. > 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
