Hi Dan, > Dan: > I better understand what you're saying, thank you. Still unsure that we agree…
Okay. I'm still having fun :-) >> 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... > > Dan: > I see you saying two different things here. First you say we in the > West look for freedom by doing something else but then you say what > they really mean is the result of that freedom. But if we are only > doing something else where is the resulting freedom? > > That's why I think it is better to say there is only freedom and > constraint, not two different kinds of freedom. Read the Lila quote > again... "freedom doesn't mean anything." Well, not quite.. I'm saying that if we are only doing something else, there clearly is freedom from a particular pattern. What there isn't though, is lasting DQ. Perhaps if I re-emphasise some things here.. The first thing is that when Pirsig claims that 'freedom doesn't mean anything' I think that he is merely pointing to the fact that it isn't what 'light's people's eyes up' when they talk about it. To support this in the next sentence he writes… "The real reason it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean Dynamic Quality." So Pirsig is not claiming that people in the West don't experience Freedom. Or that literally freedom isn't anything. He is saying that in the West we don't always experience the DQ that *can* go with freedom. In other words he is pointing out that freedom and DQ are not the same. Freedom is the state of free from some static pattern. This could also be chaos. But it's not DQ. People in the West do get free and experience DQ though. They are able to achieve freedom from some such a static low quality pattern. There are laws which create this freedom. Freedom of speech comes to mind whereby you can generally speak your mind irrespective of a lower social level.. But this isn't freedom or DQ forever Amen. This is just freedom until you pick something else to get stuck on and which one will eventually need to be free of again. But then in the East they don't deal with particulars. They talk of being freedom from all patterns and suffering.. In this way DQ can be achieved through mastery of static patterns by putting them to sleep. >> 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." > > Dan: > Again, it is a bit of a misnomer to claim workers in the East toil > long hard hours without complaint. They aren't happy about it any more > than were the workers in the West a hundred years ago. They do it > because it enables them to send a few pennies home each month to > families who would starve otherwise. As societies evolve workers begin > desiring a bigger piece of that pie. The revolution that occurred here > will happen in the East as well... it is already happening. China has > a burgeoning middle class that demands better pay and improved working > conditions. Jobs there are being outsourced to Vietnam and other > countries that offer cheaper abundant labor. > > People are people no matter where they live. We all desire basic > necessities like food, fresh water, shelter, and a better life for our > children. That's why so many workers flock to the cities in search of > jobs... like the immigrants who traveled to the New World a century > ago they are sacrificing their own happiness in hopes their loved ones > will live a better life. Well I don't disagree with this. We can emphasise similarities or we can emphasise differences. Both are right. It just depends on whether it is any good to find those similarities or differences. The similarities which you point to I certainly agree with. The similarities of hard work is certainly something which is universal.. But.. I think there is value in Pirsig's distinction. Again, you have stated that you haven't experienced much of a difference between the cultures of the East and West so I might just be wasting my breath but, it is true that in the East they do work long hard hours without complaint. China has been able to maintain an incredible amount of control over its citizens and maintain incredible social cohesion despite their very poor living standards and working conditions. I think at the core of this is the different ways each culture views freedom. >> 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: > That has been my intent all along and I presume yours as well. It > would appear what people call freedom in the west isn't really > freedom. I don't see any cataclysmic shift between cultures. Ahh, right. Here we are. I think people in the West do have freedom. They do find freedom from particular low quality patterns. That is a definition of freedom. Freedom is the state of being free from some such a static quality. If that is the definition then both types of freedom are legitimate. The West is concerned on being free from particular patterns, while the East is concerned with being free from all patterns. >>>>> 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. > > Dan: > I would suggest that the MOQ says it is impossible to say beforehand > what is good and what is degenerate. > > "It seems as though a society that is intolerant of all forms of > degeneracy shuts off its own Dynamic growth and becomes static. But a > society that tolerates all forms of degeneracy degenerates. Either > direction can be dangerous. The mechanisms by which a balanced society > grows and does not degenerate are difficult, if not impossible, to > define. > > "How can you tell the two directions apart? Both oppose the status > quo. Radical idealists and degenerate hooligans sometimes strongly > resemble each other." [Lila] > > Dan comments: > If something is degenerate I take it as not being something good. But > to deny degeneracy means we also deny any chance of Dynamic evolution. > The good goes along with the bad. If a society shuts itself off from > the evil of degeneracy it also becomes static and stagnant. Yes. I comment on the importance of a distinction between knowing what's degenerate in my final comment below.. > >> >>>> 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. > > Dan: > I would say an analogy is never direct. The similarity is what makes > it an analogy, is it not? Well this is where we get into the imprecision of romantic language. I like the precision of saying Dynamic Quality is not freedom. Because as we are discussing.. it isn't. >>>> 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. > > Dan: > But it isn't really freedom. It is confused as freedom. So there are > not two kinds of freedom. There is that which is confused as freedom > and there is freedom. Well here is the important distinction between DQ and freedom which I've described above. There is that which is confused as harmonious DQ and there is harmonious DQ. But both freedoms experience DQ. > Dan: > Thank you. I've been spending much of my time working out a > concatenation of short stories that will perhaps evolve into a novel > if nourished with enough care. I am exploring the relationship between > Zen teachings, the evolution of Western religion, and everyday life in > general... the relationships that evolve between man and woman, > between siblings, between father and son, and between the individual > and the nation. > > Our discussions here are a great help. Thank you. No worries. I very much look forward to a well nourished novel :-) >>> 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? > > Dan: > I pulled this from the introduction to my work in progress. Please > keep in mind it is written from a fictional point of view: > > I speak only from experience so please take this with that caveat. > Over the years I've learned various meditation techniques that all > involve stilling my thoughts while holding an image before my mind's > eye. My body prefers zazen, however. > > When I first learned to practice zazen I was taught to count my > breaths in various ways which I assume was to preclude me from > settling on just one technique. By and by my thoughts stilled so the > counting stopped. When my thoughts began again as they did I was > taught to began my counting again to bring myself back to center. > > In time, I found the counting grew shorter. When I first began my > practice I counted from one to ten over and over again I don't know > how many times. These thoughts grew to a cacophony before finally > quieting down to a whisper. But they were still there, insistent and > insidious. > > One day after perhaps seven years of practice these thoughts stopped, > boom, just like that. My mind experienced complete silence. Not so > much as a whisper arose. I became very excited thinking I had > accomplished something profound but then the thoughts began again and > I knew my expectations were ruining my practice. So I quit expecting > anything. > > As my practice ripened and on clear days I merely counted to three or > four to find that depth of silence though on other not so clear days I > still had to count one to ten over and over. Over a period of many > more years and much arduous practice the clear days began to outnumber > the not so clear days. In time it seemed all that was just a trick my > mind was playing on me to get me to give up. > > Now I just sit. I breath deeply a couple times and the world stops. I > no longer follow my breaths. I just sit. In time the world intrudes > and I know it is time to rise to go about my not-doing. If I am doing > laundry I am just doing laundry. When I am washing dishes I am just > washing dishes. When I am spoken to I answer just like anyone but I no > longer think about what I say. I just say it. People and even animals > seem to gravitate to me but I find I am indifferent to them. I would > just as soon be alone. > > I am not thinking about what I am going to do after I am done mowing > the yard or when the job is done for the day or when I am finished > writing these words. I am not considering what my answers to these > questions will be. I am not waiting for the moment to arise. I am the > moment. To be honest, this is great writing. I was really liking it until the very last sentence which hit me like a brick wall. I don't like the last sentence for some reason. Maybe it's just me but I don't like it. It is like saying what DQ is.. After thinking about it, I think when you say it you have an egoless mind but the world 'I' has so many connotations for so many people which are strung up with the opposite of an egoless mind that the sentence could be very easily confused... >>>> 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: > Please take the time to carefully re-read what I wrote. I didn't say > everything is Dynamic Quality. I said we experience Dynamic Quality > all the time. You seem to be saying we have to do something special in > order to experience Dynamic Quality. I disagree. By simply > experiencing the world we experience Dynamic Quality. That isn't to > say everything is Dynamic Quality, however. We quickly define that > away. Re-reading what you wrote here's the sentence: "these 'things' are Dynamic Quality until the moment we define them into static existence" My response is still similar to what I wrote originally. Even though you have put the word 'things' in talking marks, I still maintain that it is a very slippery slope. Dynamic Quality isn't anything. To start claiming there are 'things' in Dynamic Quality or whatever is just slippery slope to me.. But, further to that, you're right, it is true that DQ is always here. It is true that DQ is the source of all things. Including this moment. It is true that 'inaction' leads to DQ. It is through the quietening of the mind that leads one to DQ. We do not experience DQ by covering it up with thoughts of this or that. I don't think that we have to do something special to experience DQ. We don't have to do anything. But statically speaking things are something. Statically speaking, how do we do nothing? By 'waking up'. And we can continually 'wake up' by mastering our static patterns so they no longer grate. >> 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: > No, I wouldn't. Especially since there is nothing to point to… That's right. We don't point to anything. The intellect cannot understand this. But can it understand any-more Dynamic Quality points to us? Both are a koan. But I guess the reason why I choose the former is that the expression "point to it" is from the perspective of one particular thing to another less particular thing. Thing matches the perspective of the intellect. But if we are to speak from the perspective of our Buddha Nature I suppose DQ "points to us" would be better.. But this is really very much picking hairs and not very DQ.. > Dan: > The whole point of the Zuni brujo in Lila was to show that a > degenerate drunken window peeper could become a governor of his > people. Who would have predicted that? Of course there are cultural > guidelines by which we (hopefully) live our lives. Of course murder > isn't a high value ideal. That isn't the point, however: > > "It seems as though any static mechanism that is open to Dynamic > Quality must also be open to degeneracy - to falling back to lower > forms of quality." [Lila] > > By opening ourselves up to Dynamic Quality we also open ourselves up > to degeneracy. For instance, by engaging in this forum we open > ourselves up to lower forms of quality: abuse, idiocy, arrogance, > misunderstandings, and just plain meanness. At the same time though, > by not engaging in these discussions we run the risk of never evolving > intellectually. > > In the past I have pretty much engaged in discussions with anyone in > the group. But when it becomes clear that discussions with certain > individuals lead to degeneracy then I cease to engage with them. But I > cannot know that beforehand, you see. I give people the benefit of the > doubt until all doubt is erased. A very wise attitude. I'm sort of in the mindset at the moment that if you talk to them for long enough, even some degenerates can become better people - but yours is probably much more wiser than mine.. I'm a slow learner. It takes time.. But, back to the philosophy - this is you knowing beforehand, eventually, what is going to be degenerate. Eventually, you make an intellectual rule which says - person xyz is degenerate, so avoid them. So to put it another way - it's is not just a matter of always experiencing things directly; both Wissenshaft and Kenntnis are valuable. 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
