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

Reply via email to