Hi Dan, >> 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.
Indeed. >> 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. Yes, indeed. There is more to life than simply 'moving away from mechanistic patterns'. But I think there is more to it than that. This is what I'm trying to say - I think that we can 'move away from mechanistic patterns' in two ways. We can move away by finding another pattern or we can move away from the mechanistic patterns by suffering through those patterns which are in front of us and thus finding the Dynamic freedom within them. Both of these types of moving away have their risks and this is why it is important to find a balance between the two. The trouble with the first way of course, is that what if we constantly 'find other patterns'. This is not Dynamic Quality, but chaos. The trouble with the second way of moving away, however is that what if those patterns we master aren't any good? What if, we actually have a choice not to do those patterns which we can master? What if a pattern to master is dropping a nuclear bomb? It's clear that we have a moral choice in all patterns which we can master, this is why we ought to master the best patterns we can. So with this in mind, the best thing to do is to find a balance. A balance between constantly finding other patterns, which if done too much can lead to chaos, and finding patterns which are as good as we can find and mastering those(which of course over time will inevitably become not so good patterns to master). >> 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. Yes, see the world as new. It can happen at any time. Just, 'wake up'. Often times though, as you know, I think 'waking up' is preceded by some mastery of some such a static pattern. Not intentionally. There's no particular thing one can do to 'wake up'. But if there is some such a static pattern which is 'blocking' Dynamic Quality - the MOQ shows that you can once again experience Dynamic Quality by suffering through and mastering whatever static quality it is that is blocking it.. >>> 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. Agree? >> 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… Of course some aspects will be worse and others better. This has been the case throughout history as well. As freedom increases so does low quality. But on a balance we can't deny things have gotten better. For the future we now have the MOQ, that's quite the asset no? >> 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. Yes exactly, and this is the 'freedom' I talk about below, and it is a freedom which the East is far more familiar with. I think the MOQ brings this new perspective of freedom beautifully into a Western perspective. It expands what is our traditional narrow view of freedom (which is simply doing something else) and is expanded to include the freedom which is found in mastering those patterns of suffering which exist. Pirsig gave it a new name because it is more than simply 'freedom', so much more that it is unquantifiable. It is Dynamic Quality. >> 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. Yes I don't deny that, my emphasis however is on their hard working attitude which Pirsig traces back to 'centuries ago' perhaps around the Buddha's time? >> "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. Yes, as said above, I don't deny any of these issues with the current world economy. My emphasis was on the attitude of workers in Asia. Or perhaps more accurately, the culture of people in Asia generally. There are signs it's changing but traditionally there has not been this emphasis on individual liberty like there is in the West. This is what the MOQ does. It sees value in both kinds of freedom. Further to this - finding the Dynamic Quality in static patterns on a factory floor does not take a lifetime to find. As you say, all it takes is a change in perspective. But a way of finding that Dynamic Quality is by mastering those patterns. By becoming whatever it is that you're doing, by suffering through those static patterns and discovering the Dynamic Quality that is there all along. If you have ever been to a place to a place like Japan or read about it or seen it on TV - it's this sort of attitude - that you can achieve Dynamic Quality through mastery of anything you are asked to do, is what sets it apart so much from the West. The MOQ shows metaphysically, in the same metaphysical system how the freedom of the West and East works, that to me is quite amazing.. >> 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. I think we can say it is assumed to exist. And it doesn't. > You're welcome, David, and thank you too. You're welcome and thank you again. :-) -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
