Marsha, That was a weird riposte to Ant - who I though articulated the Pirsig's position pretty well (IMHO) irrespective of which specific quotes he brought to the table.
The nearest thing to a "demand" was not to get too hung up on it. Why do you have to turn it into some anti-Marsha fight ? Ian On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > > Hi Ant, > > So what are you saying? Does 'radical empiricism' mean only what RMP says on > the AHP tapes about the Zen are acceptable and communicable experiences? I > was talking of my own experiences, and I am no Buddha. Static quality > (conventional reality(determinate)) is not other Dynamic quality (Ultimate > Reality(indeterminate)). I assume RMP knows this, so why shouldn't it be > discussed? Zen has a gazillion words written about it, so why muzzle me. > Nagarjuna wrote long before Zen developed. > > > Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the > indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or > static): > > In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and > contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by > also saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma > or that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its > true essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. > While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the > other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality > is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is > the real nature of the determinate itself. > > "Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; > the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate > truth (paramattha- sacca)." > (MoQ Textbook) > > The idea is to find out for yourself. Everyone should find out for > themselves, and nobody will if such experiences swept under the rug. That's > what it's going to take: a trusting, quantum leap. > > I have written to you a couple of times if RMP wants me out of this forum, I > will go, but meanwhile I think it should be acceptable to speak from my > point-of-view. I take it that RMP will request that I leave if he thinks > otherwise. > > > > Marsha > > > > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> Marsha, >> >> You stated March 28th: >> >>> For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic >> Quality is not other than static quality. They are two sides of the >> same coin: Quality (or Value). I know of three "types" of experience; >> there is the conceptual, the perceptual and the unpatterned. The first >> is the run-of-the-mill "thinking". Second is 'direct perception' or >> mindfulness; it is what is directly perceived without conceptual >> narration. The third is no-thing and without any patterns; it's >> awareness without concepts or percepts. This third you might say is an >> interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't want an extended stay, >> nonetheless it offers an interesting perspective. It offers a kind of >> first-hand experience that static quality is not other than Dynamic >> Quality... >> >> ================== >> >> Just to add what you said to Mark, I'm probably going to confuse things >> further but my understanding of the relationship between Dynamic Quality and >> static quality is that - from the Zen Buddhist viewpoint of everyday affairs >> - they are completely distinct. This is largely (though not exclusively) >> the understanding that is written in LILA. >> >> However, it is only from the Dynamic viewpoint of the "World of the Buddhas" >> (the understanding that is often quoted by Robert Pirsig in the >> "McWatt-Pirsig Letters PDF") is that the fundamental nature of the static is >> indeed Dynamic. >> >> Pirsig says somewhere (in reference to Zen Enlightenment) that at zero >> degrees, one sees the world as fundamentally static. >> >> At 180 degrees Enlightenment, one sees the world as Dynamic. >> >> While, at 360 degrees Enlightenment, you see the Dynamic "shining through" >> the static patterns. You've returned full circle to the static patterns but >> with a Zen Understanding. And, of course, that's meant to be non-verbal... ! >> >> I try not to get too hung up on all this as Pirsig warns in Part One of the >> AHP Transcript: >> >> >> Now, you’re not supposed to really divide Quality. In fact, as I’ve said in >> this >> book that you shouldn’t. But if you’re going to have a metaphysics you go >> ahead >> and do it anyway. It’s just a kind of an exercise in life, you only can sin >> once >> now I’m going to sin against Quality by dividing into two parts. The Dynamic >> aspect of Quality is that Quality which I associate most closely with Zen >> Buddhism. >> >> When I was talking about ZMM I was referring primarily to Dynamic >> Quality, and in LILA, at one point I said ‘I can beat my gums on this >> forever’, >> in fact many people have and nobody is going to know what I’m talking about >> so >> why don’t I talk about what it isn’t. Sometimes you can define something in >> terms of what it isn’t rather than in terms of what it is. So, I said, >> alright, >> and Dynamic Quality isn’t everything inside the encyclopedia …that’s all >> static. Everything that we can name, everything that we can think about, >> everything that we can conceptualise, all our rituals, all our …whatever we >> are >> as a living person is static. >> >> Dynamic is this up welling…, well it isn’t anything I can tell you. This is >> what you’ll >> hear every minute from the ‘Zennies’. But you can discover it if you work on >> it. But you won’t discover it by conceptualisation and this is a huge problem >> that Zen teaching has. You see it over and over again and this is why they >> sound so screwy, in their koans and everything. What they’re trying to do is >> get you to stop conceptualising and start experiencing. But even that’s wrong >> because I’m getting into concepts… >> >> Chip: Can I add to that…one way of looking at the differences to my way of >> understanding is …sort of on the level of the principle…what is the >> principle of >> static quality and Dynamic Quality. You could think in terms of the >> principle of >> static quality as that which coheres, which holds together, which maintains >> form, >> structure. It’s pinned down in that sense. So, it’ll be that…I don’t even >> know if >> you can call it a ‘force’ but that quality which does that. Dynamic Quality >> would >> be the Quality which expands, which unfolds, which leaves behind form… it >> de-structures…it’s a state of flux… >> >> (http://robertpirsig.org/AHP Transcript 1.htm) >> >> >> >>> From: val...@att.net >>> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:04:26 -0400 >>> To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org >>> Subject: Re: [MD] Contradiction and incoherence >>> >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> I believe the RMP statement says that experience and value is the same; and >>> I concede that it would seem correct to state that pure experience is >>> synonymous with Dynamic Quality. That was my point for presenting the >>> quote. For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic >>> Quality is not other than static quality. They are two sides of the same >>> coin: Quality (or Value). I know of three "types" of experience; there is >>> the conceptual, the perceptual and the unpatterned. The first is the >>> run-of-the-mill "thinking". Second is 'direct perception' or mindfulness; >>> it is what is directly perceived without conceptual narration. The third >>> is no-thing and without any patterns; it's awareness without concepts or >>> percepts. This third you might say is an interesting place to visit, but I >>> wouldn't want an extended stay, nonetheless it offers an interesting >>> perspective. It offers a kind of first-hand experience that static quality >>> is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dy >>> namic Quality is not other than static quality. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >> >> >> 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 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
