Ok, here I am again, in my slow meandering way, coming back 'round to the subject at hand.
> Ron: > Static Quality is nothing but choice and having choice is freedom. > Now I think if we all just stopped for a minute, and think about this statement and its meaning, then I think we'd all agree that it's just obvious, and yet somehow to some people it comes off as pretty radical. " Static Quality is nothing but choice and having choice is freedom." I'd add that in a way, Choice, Freedom and Quality are all analogs pointing to a certain moon we term, "DQ" and it could just as frankly and simply be stated that "Static Quality is nothing but DQ" and then Marsh and Ron agree completely with one another. Wouldn't that be nice? Ron: > > > The illusion is intellectual.The intellectual response to dynamic quality > > John: Intellectual patterns are basically illusional (all in your head) but that doesn't mean they aren't significant! > >> > >>John: > > Quite a corner you've got yourself painted into there Dan. One is only > free > > to the extent that one follows DQ, but since all experience is > immediately > > translated into sq, the only time one is truly free is in that tiny slice > of > > time which is the pet of existence to Radical Empiricism. Personally, > I'd > > like a bit more freedom than that. You need to reformulate, I think. > > Dan: > It is not my formulation, John. It is the MOQ as described by Robert > Pirsig. And if I am going to be painted in a philosophical corner, I > can't think of anyone I'd rather be in it with. > > And you are right. The only time we are truly free is that tiny slice > of time before we succumb to static quality urges and define our > freedom away. That is what zazen is all about. Cultivating that tiny > slice, growing it bit by bit over the years, stretching it, until the > world stops. So there you go. > > Ron: > This part has me confused about how Pirsigs Ideas about the expansion of > reason > fits together > with this interpretation. John: Yeah, and I'm not quite as acolytish as Dan, I can't get past the question I ask myself, no matter who wrote it - Pirsig, Jesus or Dan Glover, I need a certain peace of mind to be content with any intellectual formulation and that just ain't doin' it for me yet. Ron: > The only time we are truly free is when one over comes > intellectual > stuckness. To say that true freedom is freedom from static patterns of > value is > only speaking > about intellectual patterns to be sure. > And I'm not quite sure this squares with the idea of the expansion of > reason. > > John: In a way, realization of one's freedom, comes in steps, I grant you. To my mind, that IS the buddha, and you don't just plop into the buddha's lap - no matter how many flowers you bring. You have to get there through stages. Overcoming intellectual stuckness doesn't happen overnight, I'm sure we all know. But I don't think it comes by starting really small either - dmb's and Dan's (and James's) "tiny slice of time" that you grow with meditation technique and effort. I believe it sort of happens of itself, and naturally. I think the ol' Taoists had the most insight into freedom, and yet they didn't try and make it complicated at all, but very simple and direct. > > John: > > > > NO preconditions can only occur in a condition of NO patterns. If there > > are no patterns, then there is no choice and there is no Quality. > > Dan: > Not so. Dynamic Quality is not this, not that. > John: Who says? I thought it was undefinable, but you seem to have just cast a noose around it's neck and slipped it into your pocket, Dan. We all know about your proclivities :-) "Not this, not that" has got to be one of the most nonsensical intellectual conceptualizations I've ever encountered. Whenever I see it, my eyes glaze over and see nothing. I know that's your goal, but it's not mine. I'm trying to eff the ineffable; not ignore it completely. Dan: In other words, it is > without patterning. That is freedom. > John: That is not freedom. That is stupidity. The metaphysics of randomness, ontologically necessary. MoRonist. "Without pattern" is just chaos. What you get at the end of the day, when entropy is done and had her evil way. It's also completely impossible. Everything fits into some sort of pattern. Everything that exists, exists because of it's relationship to everything else (pattern) and without it's pattern, it would not even B. that's not freedom, that's ridgid, static death. Without pattern, there is no life and no way to bring it about. Dan: > When we follow static quality, we > are without choice. > John: Well, if there is no such thing as static quality, then what we are doing is following an illusion in our own mind. And yes, this happens. I see it everywhere around me. Men and women entrapped in illusions of their own making and calling such fundamental limitations. But is it not true that they do this as a convenience? That it serves some purpose in their life that they'd chosen on some level, and thus while they deny the operation of freedom, they are completely dependent upon it. So I'd just say, that when we CHOOSE to follow sq, we are obviously free to do so. No matter what we use to justify our failure to take responsibility. Dan: > We may think we are making a choice but within the > framework of the MOQ, that is an illusion. > > John: An illusion indeed. I agree. But the choice isn't the illusion, the choice is the fundamental fact. The illusion is that the object of the choice is real. > Ron: > You seem to be saying that true freedom is to not exist at all. Dan, You > don't not seem to think the parameters set can change at any moment, at any > second they could change their values, their choices at any level > > I mean this statement is really bleak Dan really anti-intellectual too. How > does > the good > fit into this supposition? where does Quality figure in? > > You are in effect saying that Quality is an illusion. John: Gee. Now I don't feel bad at all about jumping in to answer every conversation right away. Good answers arise, independent of the self! Confirmation in its own way, that Quality is real. > > Ron: > > there seems to be a contradiction arising in the consistency of your > interpretation and what > Pirsig wrote about. > > I agree, Ron. And I don't think it stems from the writings of Pirsig, nor the pure heart of Dan. I think it comes from the barrage of discussion and argumentation that have arisen on these very pages. And it's not a bad thing, but it needs to be dealt with. So thanks for that. John the now seldom seen 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
