Hello everyone
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:57 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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:
One is the journey the other is the destination. There are many
journeys to the one destination. I take it we agree?
>
>> 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:
What makes a good soldier? Is a good soldier one who follows orders?
Or is a good soldier one who questions orders?
>
>> 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.
Dan:
I don't think it is implied in Lila that we can achieve perfection; it
is stated quite categorically that we can't:
"But he felt that you can't expect a perfect system of organization of
anything."
"Trying to create a perfect metaphysics is like trying to create a
perfect chess strategy, one that will win every time. You can't do it.
It's out of the range of human capability."
"It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No
matter how smart you are you're never going to playa game that is
"right" for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten
questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand
more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it
the wronger it would probably get."
Dan comments:
Since I have also stated that enlightenment doesn't exist I cannot
really speak to that. But it seems to me an enlightened being would
realize the world is imperfect and it will always be imperfect.
Instead of trying to make the imperfect perfect, the enlightened being
would instead just sit and watch the grass grow by itself. No?
>
>> 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.
Dan:
Well, I think when we speak we are always speaking from the world of
everyday affairs. That doesn't preclude us from seeing Dynamic Quality
and experience as synonymous. Dynamic Quality isn't some mysterious
nothingness cloaked in obscurity. It is the cutting edge of
experience. We are always in touch with it just as we are always in
touch with static quality.
We just have to wake up.
>
>> 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.
>
Dan:
And this is the world of everyday affairs?
>
>> 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.
Dan:
I know nothing of the East other than what little I have read and most
of that was written by Westerners. I don't believe all those people in
the East are Buddhas, however. I think they are for the most part much
like you and me.
>
>
>>> 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:
I guess I have to wonder how you know the perspective of the Buddha.
But never mind. I would have to say the opposite applies from reading
the quote you supplied earlier:
"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."
Dan comments:
It appears that (he is saying) in the language of the Buddha's world
there is no intellectual division between reality and experience, thus
experience is everything. It is uncluttered by the intellect.
>
>> 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 :)
Dan:
Perhaps it is a matter of semantics.
>
> Thanks Dan,
You're welcome, David. 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
