Hi Dan,
> Dan:
> I would suggest there are differing paths to freedom, not different
> kinds of freedom. It appears to me that RMP links Dynamic Quality with
> freedom and static quality with constraint. While there are many kinds
> of constraint I do not see that there are different kinds of freedom,
> only different paths to it.
How are different kinds and different paths different? It's freedom - they are
but two different paths away from the same static quality suffering.
> Dan:
> No one would be asked to drop a bomb. It seems to me they would be
> ordered. They would have no choice as long as they followed the
> dictates of social quality patterns put in place by the military. If
> they followed a higher Dynamic calling then they would have a choice.
They do have a choice to drop the bomb or not though. They could simply not
drop it regardless if they've been ordered or not. There's always a certain
level of freedom in everything. Even at the subatomic level, though minute, it
exists. This is 'DQ at work'.
> Dan:
> I didn't say that they close their eyes to Dynamic Quality. That would
> be impossible since in the MOQ experience and Dynamic Quality are seen
> as synonymous . I said if a static pattern is mastered to the point of
> perfection we no longer respond to Dynamic Quality.
Well in light of the Pirsig quote I provided earlier, I'm going to embrace the
idea that we perfection is someone one pursues after 180 degrees enlightenment.
If we are unenlightened then what it is we seek is Dynamic Quality. That
undefined betterness. However after enlightenment, I think (as per Pirsig's
quote) we turn our attention back towards the patterns and try and make them as
good as we possibly can. That is, we try and get them perfect. Yes that is
an ultimately unattainable goal, but the MOQ acknowledges that we are alive and
cannot help but act. I think if we perfect a static pattern we are Dynamic
Quality. You're right that this seems like a contradiction. For how can
something perfect be anything but static? However I'm not speaking from the
perspective of ideas. That is, the concept of perfection in and of itself
forever and ever. I'm speaking based upon experience. If we do something
enough and master it until the point of mastery. If we have truly mastered it
- just like something perfect - it cannot get any better. And experience shows
that Dynamic Quality and static quality can exist without contradiction through
this ritualistic mastery of that static quality. This process of the pursuit of
perfection through mastery Pirsig dubs 'the oldest idea known to man' in Lila.
Here's a quote from Lila where Pirsig links rta, this ritualistic mastery and
the concept of perfection:
"'Rta, which etymologically stands for "course" originally meant "cosmic
order," the maintenance of which was the purpose of all the gods; and later it
also came to mean "right," so that the gods were conceived as preserving the
world not merely from physical disorder but also from moral chaos. The one idea
is implicit in the other: and there is order in the universe because its
control is in righteous hands . . ."
The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe, Rta
is both. This was exactly what the Metaphysics of Quality was claiming. It was
not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man.
This identification of rta and areté was enormously valuable, Phasdrus thought,
because it provided a huge historical panorama in which the fundamental
conflict between static and Dynamic Quality had been worked out. It answered
the question of why areté meant ritual. Rta also meant ritual. But unlike the
Greeks, the Hindus in their many thousands of years of cultural evolution had
paid enormous attention to the conflict between ritual and freedom. Their
resolution of this conflict in the Buddhist and Vedantist philosophies is one
of the profound achievements of the human mind."
You could say, as Pirsig seems to imply, that we pursue the fixed idea of
perfection after we have experienced enlightenment. We never get there though.
This is implied in the MOQ. A static quality perfect pattern can never fully
capture Dynamic Quality. It never gets it right. It's inevitable that those
'perfect' patterns over time become not so perfect requiring new, better
rituals and patterns, and on and on.
> David H:
>> For someone who is unenlightened, the static quality will be there blocking
>> the DQ to begin with. Through mastery of static quality we can 'open our
>> eyes' to the Dynamic Quality which is there all along.
>
> Dan:
> It would depend on what static quality patterns one masters, would it not?
Not really. I think it could be anything. The simpler, the easier to master.
Like sitting for example..
>> Yes. However good is a noun. Static quality exists. This static quality,
>> while provisional, is all we have. Yes it's important to remember that it
>> doesn't really exist and ultimately there is nothing but DQ(as Marsha would
>> like to constantly remind us), but good is a noun. And so the patterns are
>> still important..
>
> Dan:
> Well, what I said was that Dynamic Quality is always there, not that
> static quality doesn't exist. Of course static quality exists if it
> has value:
>
> "There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished
> from anything else it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of
> Quality adds a second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't
> distinguished from anything else. Then, putting the two together, a
> thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the
> value. The value has created the thing." [Lila]
>
> Dan comments:
> If you want to say there is nothing but experience, I would agree as
> long as experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous.
Yes. Perhaps the confusion here is with the two worlds of the MOQ.. That is,
the world of Dynamic Quality(the Buddha's world) and the world of static
quality(the language of everyday affairs). I think it might help our
discussion if we distinguish which world we are speaking from. As Pirsig
writes:
"The confusion here seems to result from the two languages of Buddhism, the
language of the Buddha’s world and language of everyday life. In the language
of everyday life, reality and intellect are different. From the language of the
Buddha’s world, they are the same, since there is no intellectual division that
governs the Buddha’s world."
They are only synonymous from the perspective of the Buddha. From the
perspective of everyday affairs we experience Dynamic Quality and static
quality. Of course, not simultaneously, but at different times.
> There
> is value in representing experience through intellect so these
> patterns exist.
In the world of everyday affairs there is value in doing this yes.
>> Indeed. Though we can say that our discussion here, to some very small
>> degree, and the MD in particular (to a much larger degree) will help
>> determine how likely that is. So my conclusion is that the MD and
>> discussions like this are very important. :-)
>
> Dan:
> I like to think so too.
Glad we have agreement. :-)
> Dan:
> I think you may be confusing freedom with the differing paths each
> culture takes to achieve it. I don't believe anyone wants to suffer
> whether they live in the East or the West.
That's right they don't. However I never claimed anyone in either culture
likes to suffer. Freedom by definition is freedom from static patterns and the
suffering which comes with them. Both cultures offer ways of freeing oneself
from that suffering. Freedom in the west is commonly known as having the
freedom to go and do something else. Alternatively freedom in the East is
known as mastering the patterns in front of you so that they no longer grate
and they're gone.
The way freedom in the East works is very different to freedom in the West but
still very pragmatic... If you start out doing something new for the first
time, you will often have to think very consciously about it the first time and
not necessarily be very good at it. The voice inside your head also will be
very loud because of this low quality situation. But as you do that thing more
and more the voice inside your head will quieten down, and as these patterns
start to wane in their attention for your consciousness - your awareness of
the fundamental undefined quality will increase over time. That is until
eventually 'pouf'. No more thoughts of doing, no more thoughts even of you.
Just a wondrous unfolding of doing.. It's at this point one experiences 180
degrees enlightenment. They then have the long arduous task of applying this
experience back to other parts of their life in the endless pursuit of static
quality perfection. This is how the East manages much greater social cohesion
than we have traditionally in the West. They are able to incorporate static
quality and Dynamic Quality without contradiction.
>> Dynamic Quality is either quantifiable or it isn't. I don't see it as some
>> kind of 'half quantifiable, half not' kind of entity. That sounds very
>> 'fuzzy logic' to me. A definition of Dynamic Quality is not static
>> quality. Static quality is quantity. Dynamic Quality is not quantity.
>> Dynamic Quality isn't anything. It's not even a larger quantity that static
>> quality cannot envelop. It's not even these words I am writing now. DQ
>> isn't anything.
>
> Dan:
>
> I'm pretty sure I posted this quote already:
>
> Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
> be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the
> definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to
> Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that
> Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because
> definition never exhausts it. [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child]
>
> Dan comments:
> This doesn't seem fuzzy to me. It doesn't seem 'half quantifiable,
> half not'. Are you saying experience isn't anything?
I'm saying experience isn't anything yes. That is what I'm saying. Experience
isn't anything. (From the perspective of the Buddha). But experience is
Dynamic Quality and static quality. (From the perspective of everyday affairs).
> Dan:
> Maybe I am misunderstanding the point. But you keep talking about
> rigid social patterns in the East compared to the more flexible social
> patterns of the West, influenced by the American Indians. Even your
> quote above reinforces my point that in the West our view of freedom
> is much wider: The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one ritual
> after another, hour after hour, day after day, all his life.
>
> That is some pretty rigid stuff. Rather than thinking about different
> kinds of freedom, it might be more profitable to think of the
> different paths to freedom. Again, in the East they tend to look
> inward to find freedom. In the West, we look outward. We are not
> finding different kinds of freedom, however. We only achieve it in
> different ways.
Yes. Paths or kinds, I see no real difference. From the perspective of the
Buddha there is no real difference..
>From the freedom perspective of the West the East is more oppressive in its
>lack of freedom. However, I think it is a misnomer to try and understand one
>type of freedom from the perspective of another(from the perspective of
>everyday affairs). As they are two very different kinds. You cannot really
>say one is more 'free' than the other as it would depend on what type of
>freedom you are talking about to judge which one is free.
>> Having found an interesting Pirsig quote yesterday I'm going to re-emphasise
>> the importance of 180 vs 360 degrees enlightenment. Here's the quote which
>> is very clear about how 180 degrees enlightenment is a pursuit for
>> enlightenment and 360 degrees enlightenment is the pursuit for perfection..
>>
>> "Perhaps this problem is created by the absence of a distinction between
>> enlightenment and unenlightenment. In unenlightenment morality is a progress
>> toward enlightenment. In enlightenment this process is supplanted by moral
>> perfection." - Copleston annot.
>>
>> I understand your concern about perfection. I mean it implies some kind of
>> fixed finality. DQ, however, is the goal from an unenlightened gateless
>> gate point of view. But then, once that goal is achieved, it's realised as
>> the source all things. So seen as the source of all things it's realised
>> that things can always get better and this is why, once enlightened, the
>> pursuit for perfection continues. Dynamic Quality is not perfection.
>> Perfection is what one endlessly pursues after 180 degrees enlightenment.
>
> Dan:
> Yes this is interesting, thank you for sharing. What is moral
> perfection, though?
>
> "The word "perfection" derives from the Latin "perfectio", and
> "perfect" — from "perfectus." These expressions in turn come from
> "perficio" — "to finish", "to bring to an end." "Perfectio(n)" thus
> literally means "a finishing", and "perfect(us)" — "finished", much as
> in grammatical parlance ("perfect")"
>
> "The genealogy of the concept of "perfection" reaches back beyond
> Latin, to Greek. The Greek equivalent of the Latin "perfectus" was
> "teleos." The latter Greek expression generally had concrete
> referents, such as a perfect physician or flutist, a perfect comedy or
> a perfect social system. Hence the Greek "teleiotes" was not yet so
> fraught with abstract and superlative associations as would be the
> Latin "perfectio" or the modern "perfection." To avoid the latter
> associations, the Greek term has generally been translated as
> "completeness" rather than "perfection."
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection]
>
> Dan comments:
> Ah, completeness! Yes this seems (to me) to be a better term... moral
> completeness. What do you think?
Perfection or completeness - they both sound good to me.. The moral complete,
perfect order of the universe. Fear not perfection or completeness, as Pirsig
mentions many times - they're always provisional :)
Thanks Dan,
-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
