Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Dan: >> >> So you're saying once a thought is thought perfectly, it disappears >> along with the rest of reality. But then it is replaced with a better >> thought. Yet, I cannot help but think that if that first thought was >> perfect, what could be better than that? Perhaps we are using >> different definitions of perfect. >> >> Perfect - noun >> >> 19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless. >> 20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve. >> >> Now, I take it you mean definition 19, to make perfect, flawless. But >> if you really mean definition 20, then I can agree. > >David: > Yeah, as I was saying to dmb. With all this talk of perfection I too think a > distinction needs to be made. There is perfection of static quality for ever > and ever and ever amen such as say Communism. With the belief that some > static intellectual quality will be able to put everything neatly in its > place for ever and never needs to be changed. Of course that is not possible > or desirable. For clarity - This would be like using definition 19 and > ignoring the importance of definition 20. Saying you have made a flawless or > faultless thing for ever and ever amen. It's never going to happen. > > But, perfection of something so that while your doing it, that voice inside > your head quietens down, until you have perfected that thing and then, > 'pouf'. No more static quality. That is possible. > > In other words, perfection with the openness that static quality changes. > But that it changes does that mean it is impossible to perfect something? No, > I don't think so. For clarity - I think both definition 19 and 20 above apply > to this distinction. You work towards perfection and it is achieved, and > then, time passes and.... more static quality. And so you have to work on > perfecting it again. This is how an evolution of ideas work. You don't have > to look far to see examples of this... how Newton for instance, looked at the > data in front of him and created his formulas. Then a while passed, it was > shown not all the data matched his formulas and so newer, better ideas had to > be created. And they had to think about it... and on and on.
Dan: Yes but if Newtonion physics were perfect, there wouldn't be anything better. Yes, he perfected his mathematics the same way an artist perfects their techniques, but that doesn't equate to perfect static quality patterns. That's what I was attempting to point out by offering the differing definitions. Static quality patterns are evolving towards Dynamic Quality, away from any fixed patterns. To say they can somehow be perfect is to misunderstand the MOQ and the nature of reality. It is a fools errand, a wild goose chase, a quixotic adventure that has no value. > > >>> David: >>> And there is also a line in there about how perfect is a synonym for >>> quality. >> >> Dan: >> >> And so undefined? >David: > Or defined. Quality can be both. Dan: Well now, that depends on the context. > >>> So no Zen monk is enlightened? >> >> Dan: >> >> No. Some may be awake, however. > > Potatoes, potAtoes no? Dan: There those who believe in the goal of enlightenment. And if you are one, then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. You'll just have to see for yourself. > >> Dan: >> >> Yes, the pursuit of perfection. >David: > Yes in his pursuit of perfection which according to you he never achieved. > But does that mean it is impossible? No, I don't think so. Dan: Well, again, if you wish to believe in perfection, then believe in perfection. Don't let me stop you. > >>> David: >>> Any realisation means that you have perfected static quality to some degree. >> >> Dan: >> >> Yes, again, it is in the pursuit, not in achieving. >David: > I'm hoping this earlier distinction will end this disagreement we seem to be > having. No, not achieving for ever and ever, but achieving none the less. Dan: There is no perfect human being. We may pursue perfection through whatever means we prefer, yet we will never obtain it. > >> Dan: >> Yes. The world isn't the act. >David: > I could say here that Dynamic Quality isn't an 'act' either, but you know > that too. > >>> 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. >> >> Dan: >> >> If you mean definition 20 above, then yes. If you mean definition 19, no. > > I mean both as described above. Dan: Then we must agree to disagree. Picasso wasn't perfect. How do I know? Some people don't care for his work... me for one. If he was perfect, there would be no disagreement that he was indeed a perfect artist. > >> Dan: >> >> Then you live in a different world than do I. No one I know is >> perfect. Nor is what they do perfect. The wise ones realize this and >> strive towards perfection knowing full well they'll never achieve it. >> But it isn't the goal that's important. >David: > I disagree. People do achieve perfection. But the perfect biological, social > and intellectual person? We're at least a few more generations of that! :- ) Dan: Like I said, you must live in a different world than do I. I cannot name a single perfect person. And I know a lot of people, who also know a lot of people. We all screw up. It is human nature. And odds are, the most perfect of persons is going to be the biggest screw-up of all. Most recent case in point, the guy who wrote Three Cups of Tea. > > >>> David: >>> 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. >> >> Dan: >> So you are saying Dynamic Quality evolves? >David: > Yes, Dynamic Quality 'evolves' static quality. Without it, static quality > would get old and die. Dan: That isn't what I asked. You said perfect static quality is Dynamic Quality. And it evolves. This isn't in congruence with the MOQ so far as I can see. > >>>>> 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. >>> David: >>> To the contrary, by achieving perfection all static quality is negated, >>> thereby leaving just Dynamic Quality. >> >> Dan: >> >> Okay. But what does Dynamic Quality evolve into? And if it is perfect, >> why? What motivation drives Dynamic Quality towards that which is >> better when "it" is the very epitome of better? > >David: > Dynamic Quality isn't a thing to evolve into anything. The only thing which > ever gets 'better' is static quality. How does that get better? Dan: You seem to be going round in circles like Joshu's dog chasing his tail. > >> Dan: >> >> No. I have described waking up. There is no enlightenment. How can one >> obtain something that they've always had? >David: > There are two kinds of enlightenment - 180 degrees enlightenment (Which is > the realisation that you were enlightened all along). And 360 degrees > enlightenment(Which is taking this insight and applying it back to the life > which you are living) Waking up is 180 degrees enlightenment. There is > still the application of this insight to everyday life. Dan: Only two kinds? Why not three, or four, or five? No. There is no enlightenment. There is only this. > >>> David: >>> 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. >> >> Dan: >> >> Have you ever considered attending a Vipassana meditation retreat? >> >> http://www.dhamma.org/ >David: > No, but I have attended Zen meditation retreats. Dan: Really! What did you learn? > >>> David: >>> 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, >> >> Dan: >> >> Well, then I suppose I am left out. But that's okay. I guess my mind >> is the only one I've got, even if it is ordinary. >David: > Your left out? Dan: Yes. Since there is no enlightenment, and since I only have my ordinary mind which will never obtain perfection, I am left out, a loser if you will. But don't feel too bad. We are all losers. Some of us are not awake to that. > >> >>> Dan: >>>> Just do it, baby. >>> David: >>> Yes, and do it again and again and again until you are "it". >> >> Dan: >> >> And then? >David: > Aww shit, more static quality! :-D Dan: Like Joshu's dog, chasing its own tail round and round. Does that darned dog have Buddha nature, or not? 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
