Hello everyone On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:51 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I've changed the title to something more appropriate.
Hi David Yes that's fine. > >>> Yes, How? What did they both do that meant they experienced Dynamic Quality? >> >> Dan: >> Doing something doesn't translate into knowing how it occurs. You are >> changing the question from a how to a what. >David: > Doing something in this case, does translate into knowing how it occurs. > That is the only answer you can give. The only way to know what Dynamic > Quality is, is to experience it for yourself. So how does someone > experience Dynamic Quality? This is what I am getting at. The MOQ says that > you can experience Dynamic Quality by getting static quality perfect. Dan: Where does the MOQ state that static quality patterns can be perfect? The closest I can find is: "They want him to get those patterns perfect!" concerning zen monks. The key word though is "want." It is like a pursuit of perfection, something that will never happen. Browsing for "perfect" through my searchable text of LILA, I can find nothing that even suggests static quality patterns are capable of perfection... just the opposite, rather. There are many quotes about how it is impossible to perfect anything. >David: > That said I think the confusion here is with two 'hows' of Dynamic Quality. > > There could be two questions, that I could think of, of 'how'. How does > Dynamic Quality exist? Which does not have an intellectual answer that we can > really talk about on MD, and 'How do I experience Dynamic Quality?' Which > does have an answer. > > If, someone asks: > > "How do I experience riding a bike?" Well then one would say - go and ride > a bike. Likewise, if someone asks: > > "How do I experience Dynamic Quality?" > > I think this is an answerable question. Simply saying go out and experience. > Doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. In my opinion. Experience, > what? Static quality? Dynamic Quality? What? > > There is some thing which links these two things together. Every thing is > static quality. If I look around and all I see is things, then how do I > experience Dynamic Quality? What is Dynamic Quality? These to me, are genuine > questions and have a very powerful Metaphysical answer to them. You can > experience Dynamic Quality by getting things perfect. Dan: We experience Dynamic Quality all the time without getting things perfect. I am not saying you are, but it appears from reading this that you're attempting to turn Dynamic Quality into some "thing" that can be obtained, some how, some way. But that isn't it at all. Dynamic Quality is always right here! Right in front of us! We tend to cover it up with intellectualizations and mindless chatter that we have going on inside our heads, constantly telling us all about the world we're experiencing. Monkeys chasing monkeys. >David: > If you like, here is a quote from Lila where Pirsig uses the term perfect the > same way I do: > > "For example, you would guess from the literature on Zen and its insistence > on discovering the 'unwritten dharma' that it would be intensely > anti-ritualistic, since ritual is the 'written dharma.' But that isn't the > case. The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one ritual after another, hour > after hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those > static patterns to discover the unwritten dharma. They want him to get those > patterns perfect!" Dan: Again, read this carefully. They WANT... and wanting and obtaining are two very different beasts, as we all know. > > >>> David: >>> I agree but I'm not asking where it comes from, I'm asking how it appears. >> >> Dan: >> Well, David, if we knew how it appears it wouldn't be a surprise, now >> would it. And you certainly did ask where it comes from! >David: > As I said earlier, of course Dynamic Quality cannot be defined and saying how > it exists is a definition and therefore not Dynamic Quality. But that is not > what I am talking about. How does one experience Dynamic Quality? This is > what I am talking about and this is something we can very much discuss, and > in my view, the MOQ has a very powerful Metaphysical answer to it. The > oldest idea known to man. > > Rta. > > You can experience Dynamic Quality by getting things perfect. Dan: And if we never get things perfect? Then we can never experience Dynamic Quality? See, that is the problem I have. I've been working on several collections of short stories for over ten years now. And no matter how I try, I can never seem to get even one single story perfect. Not one. Hell, I can't even put one perfect paragraph together. Yet, when I am writing, and I mean really writing, "I" disappear. Hours pass by like they're nothing. I've come to accept that my writings will never be perfect. But I do experience what may be called Dynamic Quality while I am writing. Of that, I am certain. I read somewhere that Leonardo di Vinci carried the Mona Lisa with him for a goodly portion of his adult life, forty years or so, working on it, working on it, working on it. Yet he was never quite satisfied with the results. I suspect his art took him away like my writing does. And even though he never acheived the perfection that he sought, it allowed him to be better. > > >>> David: >>> I agree. But this is describing Dynamic Quality itself and not a finger >>> pointing to show how to experience it. One of those you cannot describe, >>> the other, you can. >> >> Dan: >> I am sorry, David. I think you're mistaken. I don't see that I was >> describing anything. If I was doing any describing at all, it would be >> what "it" is not, not what "it" is. >David: > I didn't think you were describing anything either. I was actually just > agreeing with you and pointing out what I have written above. And that is, > that of course you cannot describe Dynamic Quality but you can point to it by > telling someone what they can do to experience it. Both Poincare and the Zen > Archer both did something over and over and over again until their minds > slowed down and eventually stopped, yes? Dan: When you say "their minds slowed down and eventually stopped" I take it you mean the internal discourse running through our heads constantly? If so, then yes, I agree. But again, it isn't about perfection. It has more to do with a sudden realization in the pursuit of perfection. > >>> David: >>> But this time I think that you are describing how it appears. I agree with >>> this. It appears when we desolve into static endeavors that demand our full >>> attention and negate the patterns of 'me'. That is, when we perfect static >>> quality, it disappears and there is nothing but Dynamic Quality. >> >> Dan: >> Yes, it appears "when," but that is not how. How it appears is the mystery. >David: > That is how it appears. It appears as a result of the perfection static > quality. And I know I should be careful here, so I will reiterate. When we > talk of 'appearing' we are talking about something coming out from 'behind' > something. Therefore, we are alluding to the fact that static quality > disappears and reveals Dynamic Quality. I do not make the claim that we can > know, intellectually, how it Exists. Dan: Dynamic Quality is always right here. The very act of experiencing the world is Dynamic Quality. Static quality covers "it" up. The act of uncovering Dynamic Quality, or the pursuit of perfection, is what you're talking about here, I think... coming up behind it. > >>> David: >>> This is what both the Zen Archer and the Mathematician had in common. They >>> both went over something, again and again and again. They went over things >>> so many times until they had completely 'forgot' they were even doing them >>> and... Dynamic Quality. >> >> Dan: >> I am not sure this is exactly right though. If it were, the master >> would have praised Herrigal's archery instead of booting him out of >> class. >David: > I disagree. I've read the book and the Master kicked him out of the class > because he wasn't doing it the right way and disrespecting the Dharma. That > is, he was looking for a shortcut. This isn't perfecting anything. This is > trying to take the easy way out and definitely not Zen. Dan: I don't know that the book actually says that though. The question is left unanswered, if I remember rightly. Normally, to achieve perfection in any endeavor, we in the West tend to believe practice makes perfect. And so Herrigal practiced. And he shot as well as the master. I believe that's what you've been saying... that to perfect static quality is a doorway to Dynamic Quality. That's why I brought up this example. So tell me, if Herrigal didn't perfect his archery technique to the point where he shot as well as the master, what did he do by perfecting his shooting? >Dan: >> Whatever the mathematician has in common with the practice of >> zen is entirely accidental (incidental?), in my opinion. >David: > I disagree and I think you are missing one of the most beautiful aspects of > the MOQ. I've heard Pirsig use the example of Picasso. His paintings were > really out there for his time. But if you look at his earlier work, he was a > very good traditional artist. He wasn't just bucking the traditional ways > for no good reason. It was through his perfection of these earlier > techniques that he found a better way. Dan: Look at it this way: if he had perfected his early techniques, he never would have gotten any better. He wasn't satisfied and searched for something better. That isn't to say Picasso wasn't a very good artist. Like any human being though, he wasn't perfect, nor was his work. >Dan: >> Right practice is the key, not just practice. If a person isn't >> practicing in the right fashion, no amount of practice will bring them >> any closer to "it." It is also important to associate with right >> people. >David: > Yes, I don't disagree with this but I don't see how this isn't related to > perfecting something? If your not doing something right you will never get it > perfect. Getting things 'right' could even be a synonym for getting things > 'perfect'. Dan: As long as it is understood that we will never get things perfect. It is in the pursuit, not the goal. > > >> Dan: >> We experience Dynamic Quality all the time. It is the cutting edge of >> reality, or pre-intellectual experience. I am not sure how correct it >> is to say static intellectual quality appears in low quality >> situations. I think there are high quality situations where it appears >> too... ideas of surpassing quality like the theory of evolution and >> the theory of relativity. >David: > Yes, you're right. However my point is, that in situations of low quality > things can get very Static and stagnant. That is my point here. Dan: And perfection is like that too. A perfect thing cannot evolve. Why should it? It is perfect. And so it stagnants and dies. >Dan: >> Great insights arise seemingly by themselves at times although static >> intellectual quality has set the stage, so to speak. I am unsure if >> static quality is ever perfect. If it were, it would no longer be >> capable of evolving towards something better. >David: > I wholeheartedly disagree. That is exactly how things evolve toward something > better. Dynamic Quality is undefined betterness. If patterns are perfected > there is nothing left but undefined betterness and so static quality has no > choice but to follow this undefined better, harmoniously, with the moral > Order of the Universe.. i'm not sure I can put it more plainly than that. Dan: No, there would be some perfect "thing" existing without any chance of evolving and growing into something better. By acheiving perfection, all Dynamic Quality is negated. I think you are making a mistake here. > >Dan: >> Well, again, we experience Dynamic Quality all the time. Zen practice >> is designed to quiet the mind and focus attention on the moment. But >> there is no goal that zen points towards, no work to be done. >David: > Zen is work, work and more work. If you read, there is a book called "Eat, > Sleep, Sit", which is of one Japanese gentleman's experience at one of > Japan's most rigorous and largest Zen Temples. Dan: I never read about zen, I'm sorry. I do like the pictures though. >David: > Zen does point. It points very directly at the goal of enlightenment through > the perfection of static quality. It's no walk in the park either. It's > doing the same thing day after day, until it's gone. Dan: There is no enlightenment. Sit quietly. Let the mind grow still. And "it" is here. Right here. Just before thought. And its been here all along. > >Dan: >> Just >> sit. Just eat. Just be mindful. >David: > Yes. What is mindfulness anyway? How does mindfulness work? Mindfulness, as > you say, is focusing one's attention on the moment. But what does that mean? > What is 'the moment'? Is 'the moment' Dynamic Quality or static quality? Dan: So many questions! When doing anything, just do it. That's all. There is no mystery to it. Waking, the moment is always Dynamic. But we put it to sleep with our static intellectual chatter. Watch. You'll see. David: I think, for the beginner, mindfulness involves becomming aware of what you are doing. That is, paying attention to all the static quality things which you are doing throughout the day and just doing them. If the mind wanders off, bring it back to what your doing, and do this over and over again until, the mind has quietened down so much, you can be said to have 'become' what you are doing. To be mindful means to perfect. Dan: Then I suppose I can never be mindful as I can never be perfect. I just do what I am doing. And it is never perfect. That, to me, is mindfulness. > > >>> David: >>> It's through the perfection of static quality that Dynamic Quality can be >>> found. >> >> Dan: >> I tend to disagree with this, as I've explained. Perhaps if you were >> to put it as the pursuit of perfection, it might be better. To believe >> that any "thing" can be perfect is to misunderstand the fundamental >> nature of reality. > >David: > Things can be perfect. In this universe of ours. There is nothing but > things. Now Dynamic Quality? How do I experience that? Dan: Just do it, baby. 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
