Hi Dan, After reading your post below I think I have pin pointed the area of contention. When I use the term 'perfection', I am using it from the standpoint of experience. You seem to seem to use 'perfection' as it relates to ideals. I noticed in another post, that you have used an example of Pro Baseballers who can only hit 30% of the time and not an ideal 100% of the time.
This is the same with enlightenment. You don't seem to think true, ideal, 100% for all time, enlightenment, is possible. You seem to think it is an unattainable goal. Both of these things though, I agree with you. The Baseballer cannot hit every pitch and the Zen Monk has to define things with static quality. But perfection to me, isn't an ideal, it is an experience. To me, the problem with looking at concepts as though they are ideals, though, is that pretty quickly you could say they begin to lose all meaning. Not only that, you quickly begin to say that nothing is possible - if we follow this 100% line of thinking - because none of them are possible 100% of the time. For instance - the ideal of being physically awake. Ideally, I don't have to sleep, I am awake all the time. Or, let's say I like lunch time. - Ideally, I am eating lunch all the time. Are these things possible? Is then eating lunch and being awake impossible? No it isn't. And so, the same is said for Enlightenment. It is possible, just not 100% of the time. In other words, ideal perfection and ideal enlightenment is not possible. But then, being a pragmatist - my ideals change, so I don't see an ideal being something 100%. I see it as simply within the realm of the real and possible - and that's what all ideas are. > 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. I disagree that static patterns evolve towards Dynamic Quality. Static patterns without Dynamic Quality evolve to bad and then death and die. It takes Dynamic Quality to improve them. If some static patterns are getting bad, some folks simply drop them and go try something else. This is often encouraged in a Western country where 'freedom' is thought as the best thing and doing something else is the only way of achieving that freedom. The MOQ says that if you go do something else all the time then that can be called 'bad karma chasing its tail'. It doesn't always work. The MOQ, however, shows that there is an alternative. You can have both freedom and order, together, in a way that they are in harmony with each other. How do we do this? I would say that in order to do that we need to 'perfect' static patterns to free ourselves from them. That is we do something over and over again until that voice in our heads gets more and more quiet and 'pouf', no more static quality. > >> >> >>>> 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. I agree. But really, any context is static and therefore not Dynamic Quality. > >> >>>> 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. Goals are good for a beginner and a great thing to forget about. > Dan: > > Well, again, if you wish to believe in perfection, then believe in > perfection. Don't let me stop you. I don't believe in anything. Perfection is an experience. As I have said, perfection is an experience of getting some such static quality perfect and then 'pouf' no goal of perfection, no perfection, no static quality, not anything. > Dan: > > There is no perfect human being. We may pursue perfection through > whatever means we prefer, yet we will never obtain it. I don't think that there is an ideally perfect human either. That's not possible. It is possible to perfect, such and such a biological, social or intellectual static patterns however. >>>> 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. I don't like much of his works either, however as I said, I got this from Pirsig and he said he has seen some of Picasso's earlier works and they are the works of an actually very good classically trained artist. Therefore, one can take an educated guess that he must have perfected this work and moved onto the other. Many people do see quality in it. >>> 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. I don't know a perfect person either. But I do know people who have achieved perfection. >>>> 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. The above top sentence perhaps isn't my most eloquent, however all I was basically trying to say, was that things change. There is no such thing as an ideal static quality for ever and ever. >>>>>> 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. Without Dynamic Quality static patterns get old and die. They need Dynamic Quality for their continual 'undefined better' improvement. >>> 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. Yes, just two kinds. I have this quote from Pirsig which I think is important to this discussion: "As a development of Zen Buddhism, it’s critical to realise that the MOQ can be perceived as reflecting the circle of enlightenment found in Buddhist thought where an adherent (such as a young monk) begins at ‘the world of form’ (typically perceived at this juncture dualistically, as in SOM) and proceeds to an understanding of ‘formlessness’ (termed ‘Dynamic Quality’ by Pirsig) to obtain 180 degrees enlightenment. The student then returns with this new knowledge into ‘the world of form’ to achieve full (or 360 degrees) enlightenment or Buddhahood (in which Dynamic Quality is perceived via the static quality patterns)." RMP - Anthony McWatt PhD >>>> 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? Nothing. > >> >>>> 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. The mind trap of an ideal. >>>> 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? Exactly. Thank-you Dan, -David. 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
