Hi Dan, >> I would say that we(sq) exist and that's better than nothing. :-) > > Dan: > We exist but a short while. We are born, flourish, and then pass away. > This is the nature of all static patterns. And yes this is better than > nothing... I would agree. >
:-) >> Enlightenment(DQ) is something you experience. If you want to equate DQ >> with God then that's fine and it's not incompatible with the MOQ IMHO. But >> personally I find bringing a monotheistic religious term such as God into >> the equation confuses things and doesn't really bring any further clarity. >> That said, I find a 'belief' in anything, including God, to not be >> compatible with the MOQ. Quality isn't something you believe in, it's >> something you experience. > > Dan: > I don't want to equate Dynamic Quality with God. I was asking you a > question and you've seemed to work out an answer acceptable to both of > us. Okay. That's cool. >> Yes. But is this to say we don't 'experience' static quality? > > Dan: > Static quality comes after experience. Static quality comes after *direct* experience. I agree with this statement. But I still maintain that we experience static quality. In fact, I think that static quality is what one generally expects from experience. It is only on those rare occasions when DQ reveals itself that we are reminded what direct experience is all about.. I'm sure you're familiar but for clarity here's the Lila quote which discusses this: "If you think about this question long enough you will come to see that the same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of surprise. What the record did was weaken for a moment your existing static patterns in such a way that the Dynamic Quality all around you shone through. It was free, without static forms. The second good, the kind that made you want to recommend it to a friend, even when you had lost your own enthusiasm for it, is static quality. Static quality is what you normally expect." >> I think we do. I think that we could say direct experience is Dynamic >> Quality but then even that is probably saying too much :-). I think the MOQ >> would say that you can break experience into DQ and static quality. But >> even the recognition of this fact is sq.. So DQ, the best thing to say is, >> 'Not this, not that.' > > Dan: > The MOQ says Dynamic Quality/experience comes first. Remember the hot > stove? The response comes first and the oaths come later. Yes. However those oaths, I think, are still part of experience.. I thought the MOQ was pure empiricism? >> Well, I don't see how it's whatever one thinks it is. > > Dan: > I know. That's what this discussion has been about... isn't it? Oh yeah, our discussion... From what I've just read over, we have had a few disagreements shall we say.. But each time, and I'm sure this is the case with everyone on the planet.. it turns out we were talking about the same thing, but have just either been using different words to describe it or looking at it from a different angle. That said, if I was to describe what this discussion has been about, it would be about whether enlightenment is possible, and if it is - how does one experience it. >> But it's good that you have no argument.. > > Dan: > It is a wonderful thing to think there is enlightenment awaiting one > at the end of diligent and profound practice. That lends gumption to > the pursuit. So I have no argument with anyone who seeks to better > themselves. Indeed. And this is the beauty of the MOQ IMHO. It shows, metaphysically, how it all works. An amazing thing. And to link it back to our discussion. This is what I mean when I say the creative freedom (enlightenment) found in Jazz is through the repetition, or mastery, of those static patterns. Once that mastery is achieved, there is no separation between artist and art. They are just one beautiful unfolding of doing. >> The instant there is a 'you' or a 'me' to do the seeking then we are no >> longer DQ and are once again separate from it and thus once again seek >> enlightenment (DQ). We can't capture enlightenment or DQ. It isn't >> something we can 'have' as we are only sq. But we are(thanks to being >> alive!), able to respond to DQ. And we are(thanks to enlightenment), able to >> wake up to this fact. >> >> There is a great distinction here which may clear this up - between 180 >> degrees enlightenment and 360 degrees enlightenment. 180 degrees >> enlightenment is the 'realisation' that DQ exists and is the source of all >> things. This is something we can 'have'. But then there is 360 degrees >> enlightenment and this is the application of this realisation back to >> everyday life. This is something which continues forever and in this regard >> enlightenment is not something we can 'have' but we can experience each and >> every day. > > Dan: > I've heard this distinction made and yes it may profit some to follow > these guidelines. I have no quarrel with this. Yet (I would say) there > is no forever and there is nothing to hold onto. It all slips away > like water we try to grasp in our clenched fist. Even the notion of > enlightenment slips away as all such notions are temporal. By forever, I mean that we can not have it, so we try 'forever' to do so. I think you would agree with this, no? Is this where you disagree? Because I think that enlightenment(DQ) is something you can experience. And people do experience it. However no one can ultimately have 'englightenment' (DQ), as by definition, it is not a thing you can have.. Including the definition. :-) >> Yes. This is the contradiction that to understand the MOQ you need to forget >> it. Dynamic Quality is not an idea, it's an experience. > > Dan: > > 'It' is not an experience... it is experience. This is important to > note. And I would say in order to understand the MOQ we need a > foundation on which to build, like the foundation of jazz that started > this discussion. Either an experience or experience itself I have no qualms with either. By saying 'an' experience I am merely recognising that static quality exists and is experienced as well. > On the other hand, we arrive at an understanding of Quality by > avoiding intellectual pitfalls of picking and choosing and that > includes the MOQ. I would suggest it is best not to conflate the MOQ > with Quality. The MOQ is a metaphysics, a collection of intellectual > quality patterns. Quality as discussed in ZMM (or Dynamic Quality as > discussed in Lila) remains undefined. We know it when we see it but > when we begin describing it, 'it' goes away. Indeed. Yet here we are fooling ourselves. Thinking we can capture 'it' in terms like Dynamic Quality or even static quality. Talking away and polluting the fundamental undefined nature of the universe. Intellectual quality... > I would say a number of contributors get tripped up here and end up > believing the MOQ is reality. It is not. It is a description of > reality and as such provisional. It changes when something better > comes along. I couldn't agree too much more. But I do think there is a certain quality to contributors on MD who protect it from degeneracy. Thank-you, -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
