Hi Dan, When intellectual patterns are perfected, they disappear along with any idea of perfection and every thing else. No thing is left. Just Dynamic Quality. To re-iterate. When some thing is perfected, the very idea of perfection and every thing else, disappears and no thing is left except Dynamic Quality.
When static quality disappears in perfection - is that it? Does that mean no more static quality? Of course not - static quality appears, and exists. So, static quality - what do we do with it? Make it better. How do we do that? By perfecting it. And on and on. Perhaps I'll give another example: The Zen Koan - 'Does Lila have quality?'. This is a question with no obvious answer so Pirsig asked this question again and again and again and again and had to think it over and over again until his mind had 'perfected' it and 'pouf'(Dynamic Quality). Then to follow, came a new better, insight, new static quality. 'Biologically she does, socially she doesn't'. But now this is the new static pattern to be thought about and that thinking perfected and to be replaced by something better and on and on. > 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. And there is also a line in there about how perfect is a synonym for quality. > 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. Yes I agree. > Again, read this carefully. They WANT... and wanting and obtaining are > two very different beasts, as we all know. So no Zen monk is enlightened? > 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. Any moment you dissolve into something then you have perfected some such quality to some degree. Perhaps di Vinci couldn't solve the 'riddle' of the Mona Lisa, but I'm sure at some stages while he was painting it he had similar experiences that you have had while writing. > 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. Any realisation means that you have perfected static quality to some degree. > Dynamic Quality is always right here. The very act of experiencing the > world is Dynamic Quality. Well of course I could say here that, the world is not Dynamic Quality but you already know that. > 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. > 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? He first thought he had perfected the archery because his technique was correct and was, as you say, shooting as well as the Master. But the important distinction is what his mind was doing while he was drawing the bow. The only time he had truly perfected his art was where any idea of 'Herrigal' shooting the arrow disappeared and as a result "it" shoots. > 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. I disagree. It was because he had perfected the earlier techniques that he was then able to go onto something better. The reason why he wasn't satisfied was because he had climbed to the 'top of the mountain', if you will, and found that it didn't satisfy him and so he was able to go onto something else. A lesser artist would still be struggling up the mountainside with the older techniques. > As long as it is understood that we will never get things perfect. It > is in the pursuit, not the goal. > And perfection is like that too. A perfect thing cannot evolve. Why > should it? It is perfect. And so it stagnants and dies. We do get things perfect, just as we experience Dynamic Quality. Perfect static quality can evolve because perfected intellectual static quality isn't really static quality, as soon as something is perfected- this is Dynamic Quality. >> 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. To the contrary, by achieving perfection all static quality is negated, thereby leaving just Dynamic Quality. > 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. That is enlightenment. Claiming something is not something doesn't make it so. You have clearly described enlightenment. > 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. I agree, and I do, I'll keep at it, do it lots, perfect it, and become 'walking'. Right now, each morning, I'm sitting this same way. > 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. Just doing what your doing with ordinary mind is not enlightenment and not Dynamic Quality. To experience Dynamic Quality in a way that is in harmony with the moral order of the universe, one needs to do something, over and over again, to get it perfect, > Just do it, baby. Yes, and do it again and again and again until you are "it". 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
