Hello everyone On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:25 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >>> The researchers are measuring the inorganic patterns of light. They >>> interpret those measurements intellectually by firstly claiming there is a >>> thing such an inorganic pattern of light which they measure. It is static >>> value which creates the existence of static patterns. >> >> Dan: >> I think it might be better to say (in the MOQ) that it is Dynamic >> Quality (experience) that creates and leaves in 'its' wake static >> quality patterns. Ideas arise from experience; matter (inorganic >> patterns) arises from ideas (intellectual patterns). Now, if the >> researchers were using the MOQ as a metaphysical framework I might >> partially agree. I find this annotation from Lila's Child quite >> interesting. Please see what you make of it: >> >> Annotation 102. I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV >> paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is through >> philosophic idealism, which says that objects grow out of ideas, not >> the other way around. Since at the most primary level the observed and >> the observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of >> quantum theory have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption, not >> just conflicts of what is observed. Except in the case of Dynamic >> Quality, what is observed always involves an interaction with ideas >> that have been previously assumed. So the problem is not, “How can >> observed nature be so screwy?” but can also be, “What is wrong with >> our most primitive assumptions that our set of ideas called ‘nature’ >> are turning out to be this screwy?” Getting back to physics, this >> question becomes, “Why should we assume that the slit experiment >> should perform differently than it does?” I think that if researched >> it would be found that buried in the data of the slit experiment is an >> assumption that light exists and follows consistent laws independently >> of any human experience. If so, the MOQ would say that although in the >> past this seems to have been the highest quality assumption one can >> make about light, there may be a higher quality one that contradicts >> it. This is pretty much what the physicists are saying but the MOQ >> provides a sound metaphysical structure within which they can say it. >> [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child] >> >> Dan comments: >> So if a higher quality assumption is contrary to inorganic patterns >> known as light existing independently of experience, what are the >> researchers measuring who are measuring the speed of light? Are they >> measuring light or a representation of light? Are they not working >> with an underlying assumption that light exists independently of >> experience? > > Before I start here I must thank you - I wouldn't understand the MOQ nearly > as well as I do were it not for Lila's Child. You were able to get some very > illuminating comments out of Pirsig. There's certain comments of his which > I've read hundreds of times over trying to grasp their meaning and the above > is a great example of one such illuminating Pirsig comment.
Dan: Thank you for saying so. Lila's Child served to shed much light on the MOQ for me as well. There were some 37 different contributors to the book and they all deserve thanks. Never could have done it without them. And of course Robert Pirsig... he is phenomenal in the help he lends to others. Many authors are content to rest on their laurels but he has gone above and beyond that in supporting my work and the work of others like Ron DiSanto, Thomas Steele, Ant and dmb, who recently mentioned how fortunate we are to have him involved in the MOQ. > > So to begin, I'm not sure how much you have read about the slit experiment, > but it's amazing how much better a values metaphysics can explain the results > of the experiment than can a SOM. It's almost like the perfect scientific > experiment in which it shows how values exist and 'objects' don't. The > results of the experiment clearly demonstrate that it's what is valued is > more fundamental than any scientific matter such 'light'. So to answer > your question, they are indeed working with that underlying assumption. And > this experiment shows that there is a better alternative - one where values > are seen as fundamental and not matter. > > But this is beyond my original argument, I was claiming earlier that from a > static quality perspective we always treat static quality as if it exists. > It has an entirely different value from Dynamic Quality. Static quality > cannot 'understand' Dynamic Quality. It never gets it right. Static quality > doesn't 'know' Dynamic Quality. Yet here we are, using words and treating > things as if they exist. This is static quality. The world of everyday > ordinary language. Dan: That is certainly part of the value the MOQ adds to our understanding of reality, yes. However, I would say we do understand Dynamic Quality. We know it as the cutting edge of experience. We become confused by covering it up with static quality patterns and mistaking those patterns for the experience they represent. I would say that from a Dynamic Quality perspective nothing exists. No 'thing,' that is. Experience comes before all that. From a Dynamic Quality perspective since nothing exists nothing matters as everything is equal. It is when intellect becomes involved that we judge the high from the low, like a person sitting on an endless beach sorting through the individual grains of sand one by one. >From a Dynamic Quality perspective nothing matters in life as we will (all of us) soon be dead. The countless paths we walk all end the same way. The wealthy and the poor meet in the same manner and the only thing they know is that life has been too short. I would say the MOQ teaches us to act in the fullness of the moment... that all life is evolving away from mechanistic patterns while at the same time informing us that we need a balance of Dynamic and static to lead a harmonious life. > >>>> Dan: >>>> We do what needs to be done. :) >>> >>> Mmmm. What about we apply the experience of DQ back to our everyday life. >> >> Dan: >> Experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous in the MOQ. But >> we tend to bury the newness of experience under the static quality >> patterns we have grown used to and assume them to be our reality. >> >> By waking up to the moment we do what needs to be done with the >> fullness of our attention without thinking about what we will be doing >> next or what we will be having for dinner later. There is nothing to >> apply back to our everyday life. We are experience. > > Experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous in the MOQ because it > is a static intellectual construction. Dynamic Quality isn't experience or > value or anything else defined. Your words above, and my words now, are they > not static? Dynamic Quality is not your definition above, nor is it these > words I am writing now. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing. You're right, we > do bury the newness of experience under static quality patterns. We can't > help but do this. We've both just done it. We are using words and these are, > by definition, not Dynamic Quality. This is the situation, and we both > agree with it. Further, we both agree that in order to once again experience > Dynamic Quality we need to 'wake up'. But how do we do this? How do we 'wake > up'? I think you know my answer, but what is yours? Dan: See the world as new. > >>>> Dan: >>>> If something cannot be better it implies (to me) that it is exclusively >>>> static. >>> >>> I agree. Static quality (without DQ) does not get better. But, it is Only >>> static quality which can get better (as a result of responding to DQ). This >>> is the key to our disagreement. The answer, I think, lies here. Can DQ get >>> better? I think the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. DQ is >>> not any thing so it cannot get any better. This is why I say that once sq >>> is mastered it no longer exists. Because if you have mastered something, >>> how can you get any better at it? This is what you ask me and I agree with >>> your point that you cannot get any better after you have mastered >>> something. I seem to be saying that once something is mastered that's it >>> for all time, for ever and ever. (how depressing). But of course, we both >>> know, that's not how it works. No matter how 'enlightened' one may be, one >>> cannot help but do things and act in a certain way and VALUE things. This >>> is unavoidable. Static quality is unavoidable. Static quality will always >>> ruin our Zen no matter how >>> enlightened and in line with DQ we may be.. >> >> Dan: >> So you are saying there is no enlightenment, or at least that's what it >> seems. > > After thinking about this some more - yes, indeed from a static point of view > I am saying that. From a static point of view, there is nothing but static > quality. We both know that static quality 'represents' Dynamic Quality, but > static quality doesn't know that. One only really 'knows' that if one > 'knows' what Dynamic Quality is, which of course, is not static quality. So > from a static point of view, there really is no such thing as enlightenment. > I have heard that Pirsig's Zen teacher Katagiri Roshi went so far as to call > Zen Bullshit. It's this emphasis on the wordless and non-static which Zen > is all about and yes - the MOQ agrees with it. It agrees that ultimately - > Zen is bullshit. But so is the MOQ, and so is everything. Yet here we are, > talking about it. So where the MOQ disagrees with Zen is that it says these > words which we use to describe things are still important and so we might as > well make them as good as we can. > > So, in that sprit, what I'm saying is that yes, you're right, Enlightenment > doesn't exist. In fact, ultimately, nothing exists. But here we are, > talking about existence. So, because we're talking about existence and using > words we might as well use these words as best we can. So the best I can do > is use words by their dictionary definition, and by its definition > enlightenment(DQ) does exist. Dan: Fair enough. > >>> Yes, I don't deny people can be bad. Of course they can. Of course people >>> make mistakes. Of course people still mostly just look out for themselves. >>> But if you look out at the history of the world, things have gotten better. >>> But this is not really vital to my point and was a rhetorical question so >>> I'm happy to leave it at that.. >> >> Dan: >> I wonder though just what it is that has gotten better in the history >> of the world? Our oceans are dying. We are at present experiencing one >> of the greatest mass extinction events in the history of the world. We >> are consuming far more resources than are sustainable leaving our >> descendants to do without commodities we all take for granted... >> peanut butter, honey, chocolate, fresh fruit and vegetables, sea >> food... these might all vanish except for the very wealthy able to >> afford such 'luxuries.' >> >> I suspect (due to our 'success' as a species) we are kicking the >> biological rungs out of the ladder of evolution and without that >> stable support the upper levels will collapse. I guess I don't share >> your optimism that things have gotten better. I think that is an >> illusion we tell ourselves to rationalize the destruction we have >> wrought. > > Okay, I don't deny any of that. But things have still gotten better. From the > beginning of the universe with no intelligent life, to biological life on > earth, right up to intelligent life over the last few thousand years. These > things are better and improvements of one level over another. The MOQ is > good in how it shows us Metaphysically, as you say, that we need those lower > levels to support our upper ones. It shows this Metaphysically. Not just > for a few people, but for all things everywhere. Imagine a world where most > people saw this metaphysically.. Now there's an improvement. But the > creation of the MOQ is more than a start! Dan: I would love to agree with you. But I am guessing our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to live to see a world very different from our own and it will not be a better world. I (of course) hope I am wrong... > >>>> David H: >>>> I think it is because people, like all things, are static quality. It >>>> is only static quality which can get better. Any and all static >>>> quality can always be better. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> I unsure if I agree. >>>> >>>> "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they >>>> demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change." [Lila] >>>> >>>> If we feel we've mastered something, that it is perfect, then we >>>> inadvertently suppress any Dynamic response to change... to become >>>> better. How can one improve on perfection? If something is perfect, >>>> doesn't it demand blind obedience? >>> >>> Yes, this relates to what I said above where static quality (without DQ) >>> does not get any better. But I still maintain that it is only static >>> quality which can better. Any static quality you can think of can get >>> better. That is the nature of static quality. Static quality is pain. To >>> put it in Buddhist terms, static quality is suffering. We treat static >>> quality as if it is reality and it isn't and this brings us suffering. >>> But without that suffering, things don't get better. We need static quality >>> to make those latches. Once those latches exist we need to suffer with them >>> by mastering them, to break them up and reveal the DQ which is there all >>> along. This is not blind obedience. There, hidden in the most ritualistic >>> static quality, the Dynamic Quality (and freedom) lies. >>> >>> As Pirsig writes in Lila: >>> >>> "You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, >>> you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part >>> of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they >>> are gone. There in the centre of the most monotonous boredom of static >>> ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." >> >> Dan: >> Yes I think we've been over this before. He is speaking here of the >> ritualistic nature of zen monasteries and I have no disagreement with >> this passage. >> >> However, I don't think he means we have to forget everything to master >> something. And it is a bit of a misnomer to think of static quality as >> suffering. If not for suffering there would be no reason to improve >> one's lot. Good food, good drink, these are high quality patterns that >> do not entail suffering. A safe place to live, enough money to provide >> for one's family, these are high quality patterns as well. >> >> I would say suffering is a kind of response to Dynamic Quality. >> Without suffering there would be no reason to better our lot. > > Good food - what food? Good drink - what drink? A safe place to live - what > place? Enough money - how much is that? Yes, we can define these things > statically and to be sure, they might be very good. But soon enough, if we > hold onto these things for long enough, they too will become not so good. > This is the natural order of things. Things get old and become not so good > and eventually die. This is why I say things have gotten better over time. > Because things have gotten better over time and older patterns which haven't > responded as much to Dynamic Quality - have gotten old. We can constantly > update and indeed we do update our definitions of what is good food and what > is a safe place to live but if we do not update these static things by > responding to Dynamic Quality then they will get old and so not so good. > This is why I say that static quality is suffering. If we hold onto it, and > indeed we cannot help but do this, we suffer. Static quality is suffering. > No matter how good a pattern is, it will end up being suffering. So how do > we avoid suffering? We can avoid it by constantly doing something else. This > is our traditional view of freedom in the West. If your suffering on some > such a pattern, you ought to be free to go do something else! Dan: I don't know that suffering should be avoided. And it seems (to me) that you're advocating relinquishing all the static quality pattens that hold us in place in favor of the complete freedom of Dynamic Quality. While this may be appealing (to some people) in an intellectual fashion I am unsure how viable such a life would be. I mean, sure, a person could become an itinerant wanderer living off hand-outs and eating out of Dumpsters and sleeping in gutters, constantly doing what they pleased, but we have words for that. And they are not nice words. Rather, it seems better to open one's eyes to suffering, see a need that needs resolving, and do it. All great inventions took place to feed a need. This is a true response to Dynamic Quality, in my opinion. Not running away... not avoiding suffering, but recognizing it, embracing it, and working to make things better for as many people as possible. > > But there's also another type of freedom, more common in the East. That is, > you free yourself by mastering those patterns so that they no longer exist. > People in the West often shriek at the way folks in the East can work hard > long hours without complaint. 'How can they do that?!' How do they tolerate > it?!' But as Pirsig points out the difference isn't genetic it's a cultural > one where they figured out how to include static and Dynamic Quality without > contradiction. Dan: Well, I am unsure that they do tolerate it. The economic success of Japan was built on the backs of workers who eventually rebelled against such totalitarian methods. Since Lila was published Japan has suffered an economic meltdown that shows no let up in sight. It will be the same with China, I imagine. R. Buckminster Fuller wrote extensively about this in his Critical Path book. As a society evolves the workers tend to expect and come to demand a greater share of the pie. The West went through the very same thing a century or two ago. > > "Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long hours without > complaint, was not a genetic characteristic, but a cultural one. It resulted > for the working out , centuries ago, of the problem of Dharma, and the way in > which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems to proceed > by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A revolution of > freedom against old rituals produces a new order. Which soon becomes another > old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, and on and on. > > In the Orient, there are plenty of conflicts, but historically, this > particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. Phaedrus thought that > may it is because Dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without > contradiction. " > > This is how we truly free ourselves from the suffering of static quality; by > confronting the static quality, suffering through the static quality and > finally mastering the static quality by finding the Dynamic Quality which was > hidden there behind the suffering all along. Dan: I think what we've seen traditionally in Japan and now in China is corporations taking advantage of workers and the low cost of labor. Why do you think Apple built their factories there? Do we want to work our life away for a corporation that doesn't give a good crap about us? Is this really how we go about mastering static quality? By suffering through a lifetime of labor? And by the time we finally discover the Dynamic Quality hiding there all along we are ready for our grave. Perhaps that is the way. But it seems a hard way. > > >>> I think we certainly see things very similarly. But I think there is great >>> value in saying that enlightenment exists and that it can be achieved >>> through the mastery of static quality. The MOQ shows beautifully >>> metaphysically how static quality and Dynamic Quality can live harmoniously >>> together.. >> >> Dan: >> There is also great value in assuming that light exists and can be >> measured independently of the observer. But there may be a higher >> quality assumption that contradicts it. If a person finds value in >> saying enlightenment exists, that is a high quality assumption. But >> there may be a higher quality assumption that contradicts it. > > Indeed. And there is a higher quality assumption. I've said to you that > ultimately you're right. There is no enlightenment or indeed anything else. > But here we are, talking, using static words to describe things, so > therefore, enlightenment along with a whole lot of other things, exists. Dan: It is assumed to exist. Or not. > > Thanks Dan, You're welcome, David, and thank you too. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
