Hi Dan, >> That's exactly right. In the west, freedom starts with an intellectual >> static pattern and then wants to be free from that particular pattern. >> While in East freedom starts with direct experience itself. > > Dan: > I don't know as I agree with that. I should think that the practice of > meditation and zazen are aimed at stilling the inner discursive voice > running through the mind that represents experience. If they started > with direct experience itself would there be any need for such > strenuous practice?
Yes, good point. As you quote below, when people in the West talk about freedom they are really talking about Dynamic Quality. Usually in the West, what we value the most when talking about freedom is being free from a *particular* negative pattern to be able to go and do something else. Particular, I think, is the key word here. In the East they are more aquatinted with the pitfalls of this approach and look to free themselves from all patterns, not just a particular bad one. Two entirely different approaches and types of Freedom. One which wants to deal with particular patterns, the other which wants to be rid of them all… This is probably why we were the first to legislate Democracy in the West - because we start with being free of particular patterns whereas in the East the emphasis is on freedom from all patterns and the particulars are not so important. This is why I say both types are needed. Our Western freedom is needed because it focuses on particular patterns and how they can be a negative influence. Alternatively, at some point patterns need to be suffered through, and so the freedom known better in the East is good as it shows us how to ultimately free ourselves from this suffering through mastery.. >> But is Dynamic Quality the same as freedom? > > Dan: > In Lila Robert Pirsig seems to use freedom as an analogy for freedom. > These two quotes seem to pertain to our discussion. See what you > think: > > "When they call it freedom, that's not right. "Freedom" doesn't mean > anything. Freedom's just an escape from something negative. The real > reason it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean > Dynamic Quality." > > "That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality > simultaneously. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific > knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you > don't have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from > any further growth." > > Dan comments: > In the first quote he seems to be saying what you're saying about > freedom in the West, that it isn't true freedom, just an escape from > one static pattern to another. However, he also says when people talk > about freedom they mean something different. They are pointing to > Dynamic Quality and not just an escape from negativity. That's right. In the West we focus on a particular pattern and look to be free of it by doing something else. But that is not really Dynamic Quality. The reason people's eyes light up when they talk of freedom in the West is because what they are really talking about is what can result from that Freedom - Dynamic Quality... > In the second quote he seems to say we experience both static quality > and Dynamic Quality simultaneously, or at least that's what we should > strive for. Otherwise we cannot grow and evolve in our thoughts and > desires. That's right. So if we simply follow the 'Freedom' of the West and do some other pattern every time we are suffering on some such a pattern then chaos results.. If we master the pattern which we are suffering on however, then Dynamic Quality and static quality can exist simultaneously… "Phaedrus thought that Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long hard hours without complaint was not a genetic characteristic but a cultural one. It resulted from 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, 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 it was because dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction." >> I think they are very similar. But freedom, to my mind, is simply a lack of >> static quality control.. This is confirmed by dictionary definitions: >> >> 1. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. >> >> 2. the power to determine action without restraint. >> >> Freedom 'can' be Dynamic Quality. But it can also be chaos as well. Both >> lack static determination.. >> >> So how do we differentiate between the two? I think if we follow that >> undefined betterness too much, then things can become very chaotic and thus >> not Dynamic Quality. The way freedom is venerated in the West it is seen as >> something which is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. But as the MOQ >> beautifully shows, there is this danger of chaos in not respecting static >> quality. >> >> The MOQ also shows, that we actually do not need to find this 'freedom' or >> Dynamic Quality by doing something else. We can actually find this Dynamic >> Quality by mastery of static patterns as is more commonly realised in the >> East.. >> >> So this is why I say that there are two types of Freedom. There is what we >> would commonly call freedom. That is, freedom from a particular static >> quality constraint which goes in hand with an ability to do something else. >> And there is another type of 'freedom', which can be found through mastery >> by doing the same thing. Both types of 'freedom' are reflections of Dynamic >> Quality and not Dynamic Quality itself. >> >> Now that I've made that clarification - I'm still confused as to why, >> whether we say those two ways of realising freedom are two different kinds, >> is wrong? What does it matter if we say there are two kinds if they both >> include the term 'freedom'? This is the same with quality. There are two >> kinds of quality, but they are still both quality. Both are still freedom, >> they are just different types. > > Dan: > Perhaps the above Lila quote will answer this question. When we talk > of freedom as pertaining to negativity, that's not really freedom. It > is a path away from suffering but it only leads to more suffering. To > follow Dynamic Quality is to move away from all static patterns. Yes that's exactly right. >>>> Well as I've said, I'm not claiming we don't experience either type of >>>> freedom in the West. Just that we emphasise one more than the other… >>> >>> Dan: >>> I think it is better to say we experience freedom by coming at it from >>> different angles. >> >> Yes okay. No disagreement with that.. >> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you seem to think I am claiming about Eastern culture? >>> >>> Dan: >>> I take it you are saying they seek to obtain a different kind of >>> freedom than do we in the West. I disagree. They may go at it in >>> different ways but the freedom they obtain is the same freedom we >>> obtain in the West. There are not different kinds of freedom. There is >>> only freedom. >> >> Well further to the above, we could say there are not different kinds of >> quality. There is only quality. What does such a distinction give us in >> improved understanding however? Nada. Likewise, I think it is illuminating >> to say there are two different types of freedom to recognise this >> cataclysmic shift in perspective of freedom from one culture to the next. > > Dan: > That is not my intention. We should strive for precision, however. In > that regard it is confusing (for me) to say there are two kinds of > freedom. But if it works for you, so be it. I'm reluctant to put it down to semantics. Even though we may be using different words for the same thing, words are all we have so let's try and be sure that we are indeed talking about the same thing.. >>> Dan: >>> I disagree that there are different kinds of freedom. Perhaps I >>> haven't been clear. There is freedom and there is constraint. >> >> I agree. And quality is fundamental and what's good. Why split it up? > > Dan: > It is important to remember Quality isn't always what is good. There > are differing valuations of quality, from low to high. Sitting upon a > hot stove is a decidedly low value situation. Yeah I suppose. But still - quality is what's good. That's my understanding anyway. You can have something with low quality and it being not very good. But it is still good. And our perspective of whether it is any good changes depending on the level we are talking about. >> I think it's valuable to split quality and freedom to improve our >> intellectual understanding of both.. > > Dan: > Yes I think RMP does just that in Lila by using static quality as an > analogy for constraint and Dynamic Quality as an analogy for freedom. But I don't think Dynamic Quality is a direct analogy for freedom. They are similar but not the same as the quote you provided above demonstrates. >> Not forever either, perhaps just even for this conversation we are having >> now, but those two different ways of achieving freedom result in two >> different static quality results and are thus two different types of >> freedom... > > Dan: > Dynamic Quality freedom as a movement away from all static patterns > doesn't seem to end with any static result. It is only when we confuse > freedom with a movement away from negativity that it ends with a > static result. When we confuse Freedom as a movement away from a particular negativity then that will end with a static result. It's this picking and choosing type of mind which is more likely to end with a static result. >> A game can be played on this MD. Or, if both members are not aware of the >> game being played, I suppose it's more of an infinite loop. The game is, >> one member emphasises the importance of either DQ or sq and claims that it >> is the most important thing, and then another member comes alone and says >> "Ah but at ta - you neglected the other". This is because it's impossible, >> though some folks on here try, to emphasise both - simultaneously. This is >> why it's important to keep ones eye on the balance being created. This is >> why, I think, the following quote which I post below for the umpteenth time, >> is really the crux of the MOQ... >> >> "Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for. >> That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game. Good as a noun >> rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about. Of >> course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else >> definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a >> single sentence, that would be it." >> >> The above sentence could be read to stress the importance of DQ, or it could >> be read to stress the importance of sq. It really does depend on what's >> important in a particular situation.. >> >> A lot of disagreement on here happens, I think, because people aren't aware >> that this is a loop we can get caught up in. This lack of awareness I >> think, comes from a reading of Lila which sees an emphasis on one type of >> quality, at the neglect of another.. >> >> So in my own words.. >> >> Ultimately quality isn't something which can be defined, but we're alive, so >> we might as well get these definitions as good as we can. Included in >> getting our definitions as good as we can is to emphasise what DQ is not. >> That is - it's not silence or any thing else.. > > Dan: > I am not here to play games. I think you know that, otherwise this > discussion would not be occurring. I don't mean to sound arrogant or > above it all but I have precious little time as it is and I should > think you pretty much agree that to waste it discussing nonsense seems > a low quality endeavor. > > When I sit down and go into a zazen state there is silence but I do > not hear it as silence. No conceptualization takes place, no process > occurs. Should a thought arise I watch it with disinterest as it > flourishes then fades. Dynamic Quality and experience are synonymous. > > When the processing starts experience is always there. Perhaps the key > to creativity is to realize both Dynamic awareness and static > processing at the same time. When I find myself stuck I often let > everything go. I enter that state where silence abides and yet I am > not aware of it at all. Later, when the thoughts begin I find a > solution to the stuckness arises seemingly on its own. > > I find value in using this technique. But beneath that value is a deep > undercurrent of knowing that goes beyond any words. If a person > desires to call it ultimate reality or primal virtue or Dynamic > Quality I don't think they would be mistaken but those are just words > naming that which is beyond any name. Beautiful Dan. This is your Buddha nature speaking. >> I think you are conflating 'silence' with DQ. Silence is something with very >> clear dictionary definitions. If you are silent when you are required by >> law to speak then you can be deemed to be protesting. Intellectually you >> cannot choose no choice. Remember Dan, DQ isn't anything - including >> silence, not choosing or anything else.. To not choose is a choice. It's >> all static quality.. Words are not Dynamic Quality. But then neither is >> wordlessness... > > Dan: > Yes, everything you say is of value so far as words go. Thank you. > Dan: > No need for apologies. We are all responsible for our silence, so to > speak. I cannot get inside anyone's mind but my own. Unless someone > has psychic ability (which I doubt exists) no one can access the mind > of another. > > So of course I am to say whether silence is directed or not. > > I should think the difference between meditation (directed silence) > and zazen (undirected silence) might be something we could touch upon > in this regard. I haven't heard of that distinction before.. Do you know more? >> >> Yes, I emphasised sq and you have emphasised DQ. Now what? >> >> You are no more 'right' than I am. I think it is important to recognise >> what sq is so that we can know what it isn't. This is why I keep showing >> you that we can pretend otherwise but every thing is sq. > > Dan: > Like a blind archer shooting arrows in the dark I am not aiming at > right and wrong. For instance you say: > > "I'm sure we can experience Dynamic Quality by sitting silently, doing > nothing and watching as the world unfolds. But those things are not > Dynamic Quality." > > I would say we experience Dynamic Quality all the time. We do not have > to sit silent doing nothing. Indeed, in a very real way these 'things' > are Dynamic Quality until the moment we define them into static > existence. Well that's a very slippery slope and that is kinda my point.. If we start saying that everything is actually DQ, as some do on here, then that beautiful first division of the MOQ is lost. Things, everything is sq. Dynamic Quality is nothing. Not even that previous definition. Not this, not that. > Dan: > I would say that words like other patterns are comprised of more than > one level in the MOQ. Words are intellectual in the way we use them in > this forum. When I hear someone call my name I recognize the > biological pattern in a social context. The sound waves that our vocal > cords produce and which impinge upon our ear drums are inorganic in > nature. My brain biologically translates those vibrations into > socially recognizable impulses that I call sound. When I get into a > zone with my writing words arise Dynamically seemingly out of nowhere. > They may not be new words but how I use them in combination with other > words comes as a surprise to me. > > So in answer to your question, no, words are not just intellectual. > But rather than saying we point to Dynamic Quality with words I would > say Dynamic Quality points to us... if we are receptive to it. Yes that's right. It's pointing to you right now. I think from an intellectual standpoint however, it is better to say that we point to Dynamic Quality, wouldn't you agree? > Dan: > Thank you for the wonderful quote. Eugen Herrigal has quite a romantic > way with his words, to be sure. My own seem inadequate in comparison. > I call it: > > Straying > I dreamed of my son last night. I found myself straying in the dark > under dimming streetlamps yet walking a familiar path. Looking up I > realized I was in front of his house. The door was open so I walked in > as I always did, unannounced and without knocking. > He greeted me warmly as was his wont. We talked of things of no real > import. When we tired of talking we sat silent reveling in each > others' company; looking into his glowing face I thought how fine it > was to see him again. > When I woke it took me a moment to recall just where I was. It took me > a few blinks of my eyes to remember my son has been in his grave for > many years now. Though I knew my mind was but straying in dreams I > thought how excellent it had been to see him once again. As my tears > flowed I knew they were tears of joy and not of loss. > As I lay there coming more fully to myself I recalled one day in the > dimly remembered past how I woke in much the same way early one > morning in a public park as the sky was just turning pink. I couldn’t > remember going to sleep there the night before; I must have imbibed a > bit too much. My head pounding, my mouth tasting of dirt, I looked up > to see a torch burning on top of a column high over my head, its flame > fluttering in the chill of the early morning breeze but not going out. > There was a plaque under the torch. It said this was an eternal flame > dedicated to all the men and women who had lost their lives in all the > wars ever fought. I wondered if it counted the millions of Indians who > had been sickened and slaughtered and driven off their lands but > somehow I didn’t think so. > I thought how that torch was like all the ideas passed down from one > generation to the next in an eternal dance through time and space... > ideas meant to illuminate those who were worthy enough to receive that > knowledge. I pondered what would happen if that torch ever went out; I > wondered if it would be like the day they came to tell me that my son > had died. > If so the world might return to the mystery from which it sprang. > When I array myself in dreams and fine clothes and indulge in too much > food and drink, my yard is full of weeds and my cupboards are bare. If > I had just a little sense I would walk the main road and my only fear > would be straying from it. But I become sidetracked easily. > By hoarding more than I can use I forget the mystery and wallow in the > world. This is not the way of the mystery. I like it Dan. > Dan: > Well, yes, and being that we're communicating via this philosophy > forum we are doubtlessly engaging in a degenerate activity. At the > same time though the MOQ states that it is impossible to say > beforehand what is degenerate and what is a Dynamic movement towards > something better. Mmmm, that's interesting. However, I think this is where the power of the intellectual level comes in. We can value static patterns and be guided by them or we can be guided by Dynamic Quality. Intellectually I know that murder is a degenerate activity for instance. I don't have to murder someone to know that it's degenerate. This is what we are doing here - discussing what is and what isn't degenerate so as to know how to avoid this degeneracy when it comes along.. 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
