Hi Dan, > Dan: > First, let's start with the annotation that I asked Mr. Pirsig > about... he wrote it in response to Platt's comment: > > Platt: After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. > > RMP Annotation 132 > It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social > structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to make > itself known. SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social > structures, and the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it > employs. Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object > or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience > only and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ > is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying that the Ten > Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn’t tell us anything > about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn’t tell us > anything about the essence of the MOQ. > > Dan comments: > I should think this is very much related to our discussion here... we > cannot understand the central reality of the MOQ (Quality) using > static quality patterns. Dynamic Quality is synonymous with > experience. Experience isn't any 'thing' until we define it into a > collection of symbols that stand for experience. Check it out: > > 25. This is okay. In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level of > the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows what > “intellectual” means. For purposes of MOQ precision, let’s say that > the intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the collection and > manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns > of experience. > > 30. I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but > do not react to them biologically, socially, or intellectually. They > react to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of > physics. > > 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of > matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. > > Dan comments: > In the framework of the MOQ the term 'experience' has different > meanings depending upon the context in which we use it. Intellectual > patterns of experience are not the same as inorganic patterns of > experience. Biological patterns of experience are not the same as > social patterns of experience. > > If you notice our discussion has gone in a circle and come back to the > beginning with new insights which allow a greater understanding of the > MOQ. >
Indeed. Depending on what's good at the time we can say which is primary and thus what experience actually is. Ultimately, experience is Dynamic Quality - However, sometimes it's good to say we experience static quality - like when we want to discuss Metaphysics. > Dan: > Dynamic Quality isn't what we expect even when we grow old. It is new > and comes as a surprise. Many people do tend to grow jaded with time > however. I don't see this as a necessary consequence of aging so much > as it is an attitude cultivated by closing one's mind to the infinite > possibilities that abound in each unfolding moment. Yeah. But why do people tend to close their mind to the infinite possibilities that abound in each moment as they get older? There must be something which causes this no? I the cause is the growing of static quality over time which strangles the Dynamic Quality that is there all along.. I still think the MOQ explains this in a beautiful metaphysical way like I have never seen before. The way to 'kill' those static patterns which strangle the static quality over time is to master them, and they're gone.. >> Yes, but we still give those oaths. You seem, to me, to say that there are >> things which exist(such as oaths) that we don't experience. > > Dan: > The oaths are in response to the memory, the intellectualization, of > the experience. The response to the experience is to leap off the > stove. Indeed. Depending on our use of the term 'experience'. > David H: > This is not empiricism and, to me, this is not the MOQ. I think that > static things like oaths, are part of experience. I mean, on further > thought, I can contradict myself here and say, it's true. We don't > actually experience oaths. That the experience is just some static > quality which never really defines reality or indeed what happened and > what we experienced. That static quality never really can capture > Dynamic Quality or what we experienced. But here we are. Writing. > There's an entirely different quality to static quality. And because I > think the MOQ is the best, and the MOQ sees value in static patterns > as well as Dynamic Quality - I think that static quality exists and is > experienced. > > Dan: > Writing is basically a degenerate activity. It doesn't move us closer > to reality... it moves us farther from it. However, there are times > when I lose 'myself' in writing. I cannot intellectually describe this > feeling other than to say that 'I' go away, the writing goes away, and > there is only a 'somethingness' that arises from I don't know where. > > So I write. It is better than not writing. > > We are all caught up in this language that we use to define each other > as well as define our own self. It is full of contradictions... there > is no single truth and yet we can be wrong about everything. Yeah. What the MOQ does I think, is provide us with a perspective on right and wrong. In SOM what's right and wrong is what's true and what isn't. But in the MOQ, what's right and wrong is what's good and what isn't. Today's right will hopefully, one day, if things continue to get better, be wrong for tomorrow. >>> Dan: >>> I would say the discussion began over whether or not we seek >>> perfection (enlightenment, if you will) in the arts through the >>> forgetting of what we know. I said there is always a core of knowledge >>> we must maintain, static quality if you will, in order to create >>> anything, otherwise there is nothing to relate it to. I would say >>> there is no perfection, no enlightenment, for otherwise there is no >>> way to better ourselves. You seem to say there is enlightenment... >>> there is perfection. And once it is achieved static quality >>> disappears. Does that sum it up well? >> >> Very close. However I would like to re-iterate that this enlightenment >> (like everything) doesn't last forever. Pretty soon, some new static >> quality will come along and ruin our Zen... Further I think the static >> patterns, while they are forgotten, are still important. They provide the >> path to which we can find Dynamic Quality. When something is low quality, >> or when I'm doing something and not doing a very good job, that little voice >> inside my head will be very loud. As the quality of what I'm doing >> improves, with practice, the voice will quieten down. Until 'pouf' no more >> thought, just an unfolding of doing.. > > Dan: > Kind of like losing myself in writing... sure. I can go along with this. Yep. So we are in agreement then, there is enlightenment and it is achieved through mastery of some such a static quality? > Dan: > Sure, it would depend on our use of the term experience. But like I > said... IF we look at Dynamic Quality as synonymous with experience > then static quality becomes a memory of 'it' and not experience > itself. Indeed. I guess it's a matter of emphasis like I said above... >> I can't say I experience Dynamic Quality all the time. I would say that I >> experience the effects of Dynamic Quality all the time. Experience of >> Dynamic Quality however is rarely what I expect (in line with the Lila quote >> earlier). > > Dan: > I would say we have a tendency to cover up experience with the memory > of it. Rather than reveling in the 'now' we are busy thinking about > what is going to happen next. It would seem that the practice of > meditation techniques and zazen help uncover experience and allow us > to more fully appreciate living in the moment. Indeed. We kill the intellectual patterns through mastering the art of sitting. >>> Dan: >>> It depends on how you are using the term 'experience,' I suppose. >> >> Indeed it does and hopefully I've articulated enough in this post to show >> you why I think it's good to include static quality as part of experience. > > Dan: > As we have discovered, the MOQ recognizes many levels of experience. Indeed. >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Perhaps you are right. >> >> Or on second thought perhaps you are. It is all too easy to forget these >> intellectual patterns merely represent reality and are not reality itself. >> My view changes from day to day on this issue with MD. > > Dan: > I don't often engage in such meaningful discussions as this one... > thank you. My view of moq.discuss changes daily as well... sometimes I > am ready to unsubscribe and never return... other days I am happy that > I didn't. Okay, well I hope you don't. I think that Lila is just about the best book ever written and that MD holds the culture of the MOQ together. It would be a tragedy to see this place go backwards. Like everything, this culture needs hard work and sacrifice for it to get better. >> I know I keep talking about it but I really do enjoy these conversations. >> It's good to chat with someone who forces me to articulate myself as much as >> you do. > > Dan: > Yes, I know the feeling... this is what it is all about, in my > opinion... an intelligent discussion. Indeed. Much agreement in this post Dan. I'm interested though to see what you will say to my question about whether we now indeed agree. Thanks, -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
