Hi Dan, How to pay better attention? Maybe Mindfulness is not the only tool for paying attention, but I find it a very valuable technique. I recently sent this paper to a friend, but maybe some on the list might find it helpful. It is 'The Power of Mindfulness' by Ven. Nayaponika Thera. It's a very good paper on the subject.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/powermindfulness.pdf For what it's worth. Marsha On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:41 AM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Steven Peterson >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> "In the MOQ, >>>> this dilemma doesn't come up." Instead, in the MOQ the issue of >>>> freedom is about static versus dynamic Quality. To the extent we >>>> follow static patterns we are not free, to the extent we are acting in >>>> response to DQ, we are free. >>>> >>>> But to exactly what extent IS that? What is interesting to me is that >>>> what we seem to have here is a whole new MOQ Platypus after the SOM >>>> Platypi have been dissolved. Because Pirsig says we cannot distinguish >>>> degeneracy from DQ until long after the fact we just can't say to what >>>> extent we are free. >>> >> Dan: >>> You're phrasing your rephrasing of RMP wrongly, in my opinion. He is >>> not saying "we" are free. He is saying to the extent we follow Dynamic >>> Quality, our behavior is free... our actions and our reactions to >>> inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual stimuli. "We" are not >>> free to the extent our behavior is controlled by those static quality >>> patterns. >> >> Steve: >> I wasn't trying to create any controversy on that point. The exact >> quote I was referencing is “To the extent that one’s behavior is >> controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to >> the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, >> one’s behavior is free.” dmb takes this to mean that WE have "free >> will" to the extent we follow DQ and are determined to the extent that >> WE are controlled by static patterns. I'm not sure that I understand >> the distinction you are making, but I do notice in RMPs reformulation >> of the issue the notion of "we" as well as "the will" is conspicuously >> absent. dmb sees these notions as implied. I see them as deliberately >> left out. > > Dan: > > The Will seems to be something like the Spirit, so I can see why it is > absent. It doesn't exist except as an idea. > >> >> >> Dan: >>> We know to what extent our behavior is controlled. If we did not, I >>> doubt we'd be talking right now. We follow the law. We do what is >>> expected. And we do this to seek approval from others. Yet, we yearn >>> for freedom even if we don't really understand what it is that we're >>> yearning for. >> >> Steve: >> We do know that our behavior is controlled to some extent, but I would >> say that we have no idea how far that goes. > > Dan: > Then we haven't been paying attention. > >> Steve: >> As for "yearning for freedom," I think Pirsig substitutes the positive >> goal of "yearning for quality" for the negative goal of freedom from >> constraint. > > Dan: > Freedom from constraint is a negative goal? How so? As to yearning for > quality, we all do that anyway. That's why RMP used quality as a basis > for his metaphysics. Right? > >> >> >> >> Dan: >>> What you seem to be asking is: how can we be free without sinking into >>> some sort of degeneracy? The short answer is: we can't. But there is a >>> longer answer that says: by seeking an understanding of the >>> biological, social, and intellectual ramifications of our actions and >>> reactions to stimuli, we are better able to chart a course away from >>> all patterns and avoid for example the biological degeneracy that did >>> in the hippies and the social degeneracy that devoured communism and >>> the intellectual degeneracy that destroyed Nietzsche. >>> >>> Huh? >> >> Steve: >> What I was trying to do is move the conversation forward. Instead of >> arguing whether or not Pirsig's statement is a middle ground between >> free will and determinism [dmb] or better viewed as a rejection of >> both horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma in >> favor of a whole new reformulation of the question of freedom [steve], >> we might move forward toward discussing Pirsig's reformulation itself. >> >> Pirsig says, “To the extent that one’s behavior is controlled by >> static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent >> that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one’s behavior >> is free.” So our behavior is free to some extent and not free to some >> extent. Ok, but... >> >> (1) ...to exactly what extent IS that? Isn't THAT the question we need >> to know about freedom? Everyone knows that our behaviors are >> constrained to some extent, but how far does that go? > > Dan: > > "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided > into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social > patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all > there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, > Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," > that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any > encyclopedia, is absent." > > Dan comments: > It goes all the way. Everything is composed of static quality patterns. > >> Steve: >> (2) How do we come to know the difference (if we ever do) between >> "being controlled by" static patterns and "following" DQ? > > Dan: > I just told you how. So did Khoo: > > "Just as the Buddha did, and as Pirsig realised it to, it is equally > dangerous to take either extreme of having "No Self" and "Self" while we > still inhabit our illusory impermanent selves. The former leads to > unproductive nihilism and the kind of ascetism that the the pre-enlightened > Buddha pursued. Forcing the end of self too soon, before one is ready for an > "unconditioned" existence, leads to absurd results. On the other hand, > pursuing the latter leads to self-aggrandisement and its preservation at all > costs, the kind that we see placed in the world today by the Western Church > of Reason. > > "What seems to be missing from this discussion, is the role of moderation in > considering either extreme. The text refers to this as taking the middle > path. Buddhas aside, to those of us who still inhabit selves, need to refer > to the self, not the permanent cartesian, essential notion of it, but if you > will, the aggregated "complex ecology of static patterns" that free of > conditioning, can and still choose among the choices that is before it. > > "But to the extent that this "complex ecology" is "unconditioned", > liberated in a way from the static patterns binding it into a certain > trajectory, it is free to make its choices, including the choice of not > making a choice. In the conventional sense, "freedom" or "free will" is the > ability and the capacity to make choices. In the unconventional sense, > dynamically speaking, it also involves ending this charade all tgether. > > "The task of removing all pre-conditions for existence is an ardous one, not > properly understood nor explicated by many. Even the Buddha had to live out > his natural life, exhausting each day these pre-conditions before he was > truly and completely liberated, which is why I think your putting it out as > a "complex ecology" helps to further the understanding of the MOQ in this > discussion." > > Dan comments: > If you don't like my answer, read his. We are basically saying the > same thing. And again, it is our behavior that is controlled. Not us. > We are free to pursue Dynamic Quality. > > Note carefully how Khoo uses "unconditioned" in contradistinction to > the notion of preconditioned existence. Therein lies the answer to > your question, me thinks. > >> Steve: >> (3) Why are static patterns thought of as "controlling" our behavior >> while DQ is thought of as being "followed"? > > Dan: > We can never catch Dynamic Quality. We can only follow it. But our > behavior is caught up in static quality patterns to the extent we know > of nothing else. > > Thanks, > > 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 ___ 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
