Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:05 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Dan: >> That is what Herrigal had such a difficult time with. Remember how he >> practiced and practiced his archery while on hiatus from his lessons? >> And when he returned to the master and shot what he thought was a >> perfect shot? And how the master responded by immediately dropping him >> from his teachings? >> >> Herrigal was trying to shoot rather than just shooting. To experience >> Dynamic Quality, just experience. The sense of how it happens is a >> static quality pattern that occurs later. So to try and talk about it >> is to make the same mistake Herrigal made in trying to shoot rather >> than just shooting. >David: > I agree Dan, but why talk about it at all? Aren't you now using 'static > patterns which occur later' to talk about it? All talk of Dynamic Quality is > just that - static, and so by the very nature of static quality, some talking > which points to Dynamic Quality is better than other talking.
Dan: I write because it seems better than not writing. Why? I don't know, to be honest. I could supply a list of reasons but they would all be static intellectual quality that I am using to rationalize my writing. The world is composed of value, of moral judgments. In the framework of the MOQ, these are divided into four evolutionary levels. The MOQ also posits undefined Dynamic Quality, which is synonymous with experience. It is the undefined nature of experience that Dynamically points to that which is better. We know what is better but when we try and say just how it is that we know, we find we run up against it. >David: > Therefore, Dan, my question still stands - From an MOQ perspective how did > both the Mathematician and the Zen Archer experience Dynamic Quality? Dan: And my answer still stands: they just know. > >> >>> David: >>> How did the Mathematician and Zen Archer experience Dynamic Quality? >> >> Dan: >> >> They just experienced. Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. >> There is no separation until we ask: how? >David: > I agree, but this doesn't explain how they experienced Dynamic Quality. > > As Ron asks: 'Where does the Dynamic Quality come from if there is nothing > but static patterns?' Dan: But there isn't "nothing but static patterns." Dynamic Quality comes as a surprise. It is always new. To ask where it comes from is to ask a static quality question about that which isn't static quality. >David: > I think this is a source of confusion for many. Simply saying "by not asking > how - you can experience Dynamic Quality" doesn't answer Ron's question. Dan: There is no other answer, though. And yes, those who intellectualize about "it" are only drawing farther away. They will never know the answer intellectually. >David: > What is the 'link' between Dynamic Quality and static quality. How does > Dynamic Quality 'appear'? Dan: It appears when we least expect it. It appears when "we" desolve into certain static endeavors that demand our full attention and negate the patterns of "me". And I know I am not answering "how" it appears. I am not sure that is a question that can be answered in static quaity language. It is something felt, like the first blush of love. Anyway, good questions, thank you. Dan 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
