Hi Dan, This is my last post before I depart on a Holiday for three weeks. I'll be happy to take up this discussion again then so feel free to post a response..
>> > Dan: > That isn't exactly what I am saying. There is no enlightenment. > Period. We are already in possession of whatever goal enlightenment > might convey. It is like searching for one's glasses when all the time > they nestle on top of the head. I disagree. Exhibit B, the Ten Oxherding Pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls The first nine pictures represent perfecting something - 180 degrees enlightenment. The last picture represents taking this insight and applying it to other areas of one's life. (360 degrees enlightenment). > >> David: >> 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? > > Dan: > Waking and sleeping are merely two forms of consciousness. To be > awakened to the Dynamic moment is something entirely different, > however. It is said that a master never sleeps. Yes. Now how did he 'wake up'? - through the perfection of static quality. > >> David: >> 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. > > Dan: > Pay attention. Be mindful: waking and sleeping are both Dynamic > moments, as is eating, working, sitting, etc. There is only the > Dynamic moment, David. Time is a static quality pattern no matter how > you ratio it. I agree. So is 'the Dynamic moment' a static pattern. So is eating working and sitting a static pattern. Every thing is a static pattern. > >>> 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. Static patterns on their own are death not perfection. "Without Dynamic Quality the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed." - Lila. "Without its(DQ) continual improvement static patterns would simply die of old age." -Lila. Static patterns perfected on the other hand, disappear leaving just Dynamic Quality. > >> David: >> I disagree that static patterns evolve towards Dynamic Quality. > > Dan: > Then you disagree with the MOQ: Static patterns by themselves do not evolve toward Dynamic Quality. This is in complete agreement with the MOQ. > Dan comments: > It is important to see here too the distinction between freedom and > determism as it relates to Dynamic Quality and static quality. Ron? > Are you listening? Dynamic Quality isn't structured yet it isn't > chaos. > Yes, this is my whole point. It seems strange but these two seemingly opposing things can actually live harmoniously together and that is through the perfection of static quality. How could it be any other way? >> David: >> 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. > > Dan: > Well, patterns that are exclusively static do not evolve. Evolution is > a response to Dynamic Quality. Yes, your agreeing with the above? > Dan: > In a very real sense, a "perfect' static pattern (if there is such a > beast) is exclusively static and no longer open to a response to > Dynamic Quality. To mindlessly do something over and over is the > definition of insanity. Your still relating the concept of 'perfect' as a 100% ideal. But thats not how reality works. Apply, just for a second, the idea of getting something perfect, to your own life. Forget the 'ideal' perfect and watch what your conscience says. Watch your piece of mind. If you do something and that moves you closer to piece of mind then you could be said to be getting closer to perfection. I'm talking in the realm of experience. The MOQ is pragmatism not idealism. In a very real sense, if you perfect something, it disappears and is no longer sq. That is why a perfect static pattern doesn't really exist. > >>>> >> >>> > >> >> David: >> 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: > You obviously believe in perfecting static quality or you wouldn't be > going on about it. Or, alternatively, we're on an MD talking about how to experience DQ and the way to do that in harmony with sq is through perfection of said sq. > >> >> David: >> 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. > > Dan: > No. We must disagree on this. Perhaps. > Dan: > As I said, I am sure Picasso was a very good artist. No question. But > his work isn't perfect. I agree. But, as he was a good artist, he would have at some stage, Experienced perfection. >> > >> David: >> 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 > > Dan: > > I'm sorry, David, but this is not Robert Pirsig's writings. It is > Anthony McWatt's writings. And while I love Ant and think the world of > his work, RMP refers to the goal of enlightenment as a "gateless gate" > in the LILA'S CHILD annotations: > > Hugo asks: > "If Dynamic Quality is the source of > everything, like Anaximander’s Apeiron (the limitless), then how can > it also be the goal?" > > Annotation 69: > > "The “Gateless Gate” analogy of the > Buddhists may be the answer. In this analogy, as one > approaches the gate, it seems to be a goal, but after one has > passed through and looks back he sees there never was any > gate Translating back into the MOQ, one can say that > Dynamic Quality is a goal from a static point of view, but > is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding." [Robert > Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD] > > Dan comments: > > In other words, it "exists" as a goal only until an adherent passes > through, at which point they realize there never was any goal to begin > with. They are awake to that which was always there. Yes. But do we live in the world of Dynamic Quality or static quality? The gateless gate analogy represents 180 degrees enlightenment. There is still the task of applying this insight back to the world of form. > > I think this is also an important quote (Ron, are you reading this?), > and it really is from RMP: > > "In Buddhism, the world can be described in terms of ‘The First Principle’, > sometimes called ‘Formlessness’ or ‘nothingness’ or ‘freedom’ which parallels > the treatment of Quality in ZMM. The world can also be described in terms of > ‘The Second Principle’ of ‘Form’ or ‘order’ which parallels the treatment of > quality in LILA. In Buddhism, form and formlessness, freedom and > order, coexist." > (Pirsig 1999) Yes, how do they exist together in Buddhism like that? It's through Zen Buddhism's religious devotion to static patterns, to get those patterns perfect, do they free themselves from those patterns, and thus freedom and order can coexist. > "i.e. one should not be seeking to arrive at recognising Dynamic > Quality but to a > more profound understanding." (Anthony McWatt, PhD Paper) > > Dan comments: > As you seem to be equating Dynamic Quality with enlightenment, it > seems important to recognize that one shouldn't seek it out or try and > describe it. Rather, become awakened to the moment. Cultivate clarity > from all static intellectual patterns. Yes, goals are good for a beginner and great to forget about. This is the same as the 'effortless effort' from Zen in the Art of Archery. You've got to be purposeless on purpose. Simply saying "I'm purposeless" don't cut it. Goals, ideals, are necessary and are achievable. You've just got to forget about them to get there. How do we forget about thinks and yet achieve those goals? By getting those things perfect. > >>>>>> 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. >> David: >> The mind trap of an ideal. > > Dan: > No. There are no absolutes, no ideal perfect static patterns, and so > no traps. Just experience the moment. Ironically I agree with the above sentence however we arrive from different paths it would seem. 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
