Hi Mark, >> > [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.
You got it. > 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 agree. > > 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. I work the same way. Often it's through thinking something over and over and over again that I find myself coming to these sorts of 'aha' moments. That is, through the perfection of static quality. > 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. This is Dynamic Quality where words cannot describe it. But we're alive so let's give it the best shot we can. >> >> [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. >> Glad we're in agreement. Thank you for the discussion Mark. -David. 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
