Hello everyone On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:52 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >>>>> Well I think it is all a matter of how far you draw the analogy. While, >>>>> as I've said, freedom could result in chaos which is not DQ, that which >>>>> we generally talk about when our eyes light up when we talk of freedom is >>>>> Dynamic Quality. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Right. Chaos as disorder might be seen as the antithesis of intellect. >>>> But that is not freedom in the Dynamic sense of of what is better. >>>> Chaos isn't better, it is worse. Rather than moving toward Quality it >>>> seems to be a falling away. >>> >>> Well I'm not so sure it is right to say chaos is good or bad. When >>> harmonious static quality changes to something better or worse, that change >>> could be said to be 'chaotic', but it is merely the patterns changing and >>> forming into a new, better or worse, thing.. >> >> Dan: >> In Lila Robert Pirsig seems to equate chaos with the collapse of >> culture while stating Dynamic good is outside of culture: >> >> "In the static sense the brujo was very clearly evil to oppose the >> appointed authorities of his tribe. Suppose everyone did that? The >> whole Zuni culture, after thousands of years of continuous survival, >> would collapse into chaos. >> >> "But in addition there's a Dynamic good that is outside of any >> culture, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has >> to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are >> not entirely a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change >> would be possible, since custom cannot change custom." [Lila] >> >> Dan comments: >> If you re-read what I wrote above I am not saying chaos is bad as >> opposed to good. You said that. I was actually agreeing with you here >> before you twisted my words. Rather than using an either/or scale it >> would appear the MOQ espouses a sliding scale of evaluation from >> better to worse. > > Right, I get that. Here's another distinction... There's chaos which is bad > - everyone just following doing whatever they pleased.
Dan: I would say chaos is worse. David H: And there's chaos which is the change that represents a response to Dynamic good. Dan: But is that really chaos? Isn't a response to Dynamic Quality better? David H: To tell the difference between the two is often very difficult to determine beforehand. That's why, I suppose, it's important to maintain that balance of the static and Dynamic. Dan: Agreed. But to represent chaos as a response to Dynamic Quality doesn't seem right to me. > >> >> David H: >>> We can say, using the MOQ, that inorganic freedom for instance, is very >>> low, and that intellectual freedom is high based on how much it variation >>> there is.. This is the type of freedom more commonly found in the West >>> where we are interested in how much freedom a certain social structure will >>> bring us. However, as we both agree - when peoples eyes light up when >>> they speak of freedom in the West, it is true that they are probably >>> talking about Dynamic Quality and not of the different 'amounts' of freedom >>> each level has. >>> >>> So how do we reconcile the two? This is my point... In the West we want to >>> experience that 'Freedom' so we try and capture it within a social >>> structure which allows for as much freedom as possible. While, what we >>> like about freedom is the end result (DQ), we are still interested in >>> looking at what particular static patterns can best bring about that >>> freedom, and not at wholly rejecting those patterns to reveal Dynamic >>> Quality in that way. How we go about achieving freedom is different than >>> is typically found the East. We still are interested in creating the right >>> particular patterns to achieve that freedom. >> >> Dan: >> I see what you mean, but isn't the freedom found in the East also >> captured within a rigid social structure? Just as in the West, there >> are the degenerates in the East who break the static molds and lead >> the way to greater freedom. Gandhi is one example. He was jailed >> countless times for defying authority. He was little more than a >> vagrant. While a few other people looked up to him seeking to learn >> his secret he spent his time weaving his own clothes, for crying out >> loud. Here we would look at someone like that and denounce him as a >> hobo and a loser. >> >> Now, Gandhi is venerated as a man of vision, the person most >> responsible for the independence of India from the British. Freedom. >> But during his life no one paid much attention to him. The British >> authorities looked upon him as a minor irritant, a degenerate. Were >> they Zuni priests they might well have hung him by his thumbs to teach >> him a lesson. Yet he brought down one of the greatest colonial powers >> ever to exist nearly single handed, without violence or force of any >> kind. >> >> Seems to me that the old Zuni brujo and Gandhi had a lot in common… > > Yes. I'm not saying the value of social freedoms which are more common in > the West cannot be found in the East or vice versa. I'm saying it is a > matter of emphasis. . Dan: But who rejects all static patterns in the East? Even Buddhist monks adhere to very rigid social patterns. > > >>>>>> Dan: >>>>>> Perhaps. But again, the danger is getting stuck on the social rituals. >>>>>> It would appear this is more prevalent in the East than in the West, >>>>>> wouldn't you agree? >>>>> >>>>> Yes I would agree. But this is my point. It's because they are not >>>>> interested in particulars in the East that from the Western perspective >>>>> of freedom - they get 'stuck' on particular patterns. But it is a matter >>>>> of emphasis. Someone in the East will be more likely to be open to >>>>> freeing themselves from those patterns by mastery, rather than doing >>>>> something else and getting 'unstuck' from a pattern in that way. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> What I mean to say is something like the caste system in India, China, >>>> and Japan, etc., for example. How would one go about mastering those >>>> patterns and getting unstuck? >>> >>> It is already a deep part of their culture. There isn't anything they >>> consciously think about and have to abstract about and wonder about - how >>> do I be free of these shitty caste patterns? Being from the East they will >>> value mastery - they won't be thinking about "what can I do to be free of >>> this situation" because that is an entirely different type of freedom. >>> From their perspective of freedom - they know what they have to do. It's >>> right in front of them. >>> >>> To take it to an absurd extreme… You could be shovelling coal into the >>> gates of hell and yet find freedom from it by mastering the shovelling. If >>> you master the shovelling to the point where there is no longer a >>> distinction between you, the shovel or the gates of hell. Then point to the >>> suffering… There is none! From a static quality perspective, we can say, >>> 'wow that's *Really* low quality'. But from the "perspective" of the >>> shoveler, where's the low quality? Indeed, where's the value judgement? >>> If they have really become the shovelling then there wouldn't be any such >>> value judgements… It's just a wondrous unfolding of doing.. >>> >>> Now as always, I want to be clear here and state that of course both types >>> of freedom exist in both cultures - but it is a matter of emphasis... >> >> Dan: >> I would say it isn't so much a mastery of pattens as it is a losing of >> oneself to those patterns. Mastery may be one way but it is not the >> only way. > > Right. I get that you still have issues with me saying that mastery is the > way to Dynamic Quality. I should re-iterate that we don't have to do > anything to experience DQ. In fact, 'doing something' is going to lead us > away from DQ and not toward it. This explanation of 'mastery' as the way to > Dynamic Quality is an intellectual one, that is, it's on reflection. Just > as are all descriptions of the path to achieve DQ. These descriptions are > not the path. To experience the actual path one needs to experience it > themselves. This experience of DQ and mastery is before all ideas of DQ and > mastery and anything else.. Dan: Sounds like we pretty much agree. > >> >>> As discussed in Lila, you do not ultimately free yourself from patterns by >>> constantly doing other patterns. So from the perspective of the East, if >>> you are constantly trying something else, then this isn't necessarily >>> considered a good thing on the path to spiritual enlightenment and mastery… >> >> Dan: >> Being a writer I tend to gravitate to other artists be they writers, >> musicians, painters, designers, whatever. Sometimes I meet someone who >> portrays themselves as all the above. They flit about from writing >> prose to taking photographs to doing illustrations to painting >> portraits to doing sculptures to writing song lyrics and poetry and on >> and on. If I could say one thing to them it would be: focus. Even the >> great geniuses of history couldn't do it all. >> >> I think what you are saying seems to be a mirror of that feeling I get >> dealing with folk who want to do it all. It would appear the >> restricted social patterns in the East might hold sway over people >> there to the point where they are forced to focus more than people in >> the West. > > Yeah, but then it's a chicken or the egg thing. I mean, I think the values > come first. - Is it because they value mastery that we don't see the huge > shifts in social patterns, or is it because of the social patterns that > people value mastery? I'd argue the first because there are plenty of > places in the world where people are repressed and who show no interest in > mastering their crafts.. Dan: Good point. I would say values come first too although I have problems with the mastery part. I keep going back to Zen in the Art of Archery and how upset his teacher was when Herrigal displayed his mastery. There is a lesson there, somewhere. > >> This is a better way to approach a harmonious life if it >> doesn't degenerate into a static prison. > > That's right. And there is that danger. That's why the balance and the > change of the patterns themselves is also important. Dan: I don't know if change is the right word to associate with Dynamic Quality. But I agree balance is important. > >>> But of course, there has been and is value in being free from some such a >>> static quality and doing some other patterns.. >> >> Dan: >> Again, it is a matter of focusing one's attention upon whatever it is >> they are doing. > > Right, and as time goes by, we would both agree, if they care, one becomes > lost in whatever it is they are doing. > > To re-iterate - one who is lost in what they are doing could be said to have > mastered that thing. Mastery is a name for the path. Whether you take 5 > minutes to master something or 5 decades. it's nothing special... Dan: Would you say we tend to overlook it which is why it is nothing special? > >>>>> Yes. I don't disagree with any of this. But I still maintain that there >>>>> is value in Pirsig's words from Lila where he points to this difference >>>>> in the way each culture reflects Dynamic Quality. To me there just >>>>> appears to be an inherent part of the culture of the East which means >>>>> they are predisposed to hard work. And I think that inherent part is the >>>>> way each culture views freedom.. >>>>> >>>>> If your culture is more interested in finding freedom through mastery >>>>> rather than freedom through doing something else then your culture is >>>>> going to be perceived as harder working no? >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Of course there is value in the quote from Lila but I think it needs >>>> to be viewed in the proper context. I cannot see a peasant going to >>>> work at Fox Conn with the ideal of mastering the buffing out of face >>>> plates for the new iPhones. They go to work there with the ideal of >>>> making enough money to perhaps better their life and maybe send money >>>> home for the betterment of their family. They do not work long hard >>>> hours hoping to achieve freedom. That is probably the last thing on >>>> their mind. >>> >>> I disagree. Finding freedom through mastery is a deep part of their >>> culture and how they have been raised. >> >> Dan: >> How do you know this? Are you a part of that culture? > > I know a few people from China and watched documentaries and read a few > things… I'm no expert, just that my experience is best explained by these > two different types of freedom.. Dan: I meant no disrespect; I just thought perhaps you might have lived and worked there. I know a few people from the East too but I don't really understand the culture at all. I've experienced culture shock just by going to other parts of the US. I remember living in the south for a time and how hard it was to understand what people were saying when I first moved there. In a while, though, it became easier. When I came back north everyone commented on my southern accent but I didn't sound any different to me. But I did notice people in the north talked funny for a while until I got used to it again. > >> David H: >>> In other words it is what they value. To give but one example… As you might >>> know Confucius is well known by most people in China. His sayings are >>> often quoted by young and old alike as truisms… Here's a couple of his >>> quotes on the idea of personal mastery: >>> >>> "The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full >>> potential... these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal >>> excellence." >>> >>> "It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." >>> >>> The same is said for this Ming Dynasty quote... >>> >>> "Happiness from happiness is not true happiness. Only happiness from >>> suffering is true." >>> >>> There is no room there in this Ming Dynasty quote to say, it's okay, if you >>> are suffering or if things get too tough, you should be free to go do >>> something else… It's a matter of values and emphasis and the East, >>> generally speaking, emphasises the DQ which can be found through mastery >>> while the West emphasises the freedom(DQ) which can be found through a >>> particular sq structure that allows one to be able to do something else if >>> you are suffering... >> >> Dan: >> How does one go about mastering suffering? > > Static patterns are suffering. It is always painful for them to break up and > reveal the Dynamic Quality which is there all along. In other words.. static > patterns don't like to die.. Dan: Are all static patterns suffering? I mean, to eat a nice meal and to share a bottle of wine with friends each week seems quite pleasant even though it is pretty static. It doesn't seem like suffering. But I don't see that you answered my question: how does one go about mastering suffering? Do they just keep doing whatever it is that is causing the suffering, hoping things will get better? You seem to be saying if one puts their all and their everything into whatever they are doing they will master it to the point where suffering ceases. But isn't there something known as right practice? Isn't that a technique of setting up one's context? > >>>>> This is tricky Dan because they do not know - so it is like a hypothesis >>>>> contrary to fact. Furthermore I disagree with the prediction. I think >>>>> there is value in being free from a particular pattern by being able to >>>>> do something else. Not free of all patterns, but free of a pattern which >>>>> is causing particular suffering. >>>>> >>>>> It is this particular type of freedom which is represented in movements >>>>> such as the freedom of speech movement… If there was not such impetus to >>>>> free ourselves from a particular negative static quality suffering then >>>>> we would never see a need to free ourselves from tyranny. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> So the quote from Lila is like (analogous to) a hypothesis contrary to >>>> fact? Does that mean it is without value? And if you feel this is so, >>>> why did you bring the quote into the discussion. >>> >>> Hopefully my earlier extended clarification has cleared up this confusion. >>> If not, I'll answer this in the next post. >> >> Dan: >> So what I am saying isn't a hypothesis contrary to fact? You seem to >> have cut out my quote (it is good to know what I am being accused of >> so I can have a better chance at defending myself) so I reproduced it >> below: >>>> Dan: >>>> I would say 99% of people who talk about freedom have never heard of >>>> Dynamic Quality. What they are talking about isn't really freedom in >>>> the sense Dynamic Quality is free of all patterns. But if they >>>> understood the MOQ, then that is what they would mean. >> >> Dan: >> For the sake of clarity, this is the Lila quote that I cited in my example: >> >> "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." >> >> Dan comments: >> Robert Pirsig admits they do not know what they are talking about... >> "that's isn't right." Rather it is what they mean that counts. If they >> knew about Dynamic Quality that is what they would mean. >> >> So if my statement is like a hypothesis contrary to fact, so is this >> one. I don't see it as such but that is what I assume you mean. And >> even after reading your extended clarification above I find >> "confusion" here. So I would appreciate it if you cleared it up. I >> suspect you are using this as an excuse, as a ruse if you will, not to >> answer, but I am probably wrong… >> > > Well, in my previous post I'd discovered that there were two things here… > Firstly, there's when people's eyes light up about Freedom they are really > talking about DQ.. And secondly, there's the words people use to describe, > and how to experience DQ. Depending on your culture you can get very > different answers to those things.. All those words are talking about the > same thing however, and also each point to the various paths about how to > achieve that thing.. > > This is why in the West when currently, '99% of people talk of freedom', they > will not talk about being free from all patterns. In the West when we speak > of freedom, we will more often than not, talk about the cultural and social > circumstances which are necessary to achieve that freedom(Liberty, democracy, > etc. ), and about how freedom is being free from negative social > patterns(tyranny, communism, etc).. > > In the East however, the path to freedom, and how that freedom is described > is different. The path to freedom is often through mastery of ones craft, > and freedom is being free, as you described it, from all patterns of > suffering. > > So going over Pirsig's quote: "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." it speaks to how when people speak, what they're > speaking about is DQ. So in other words - Pirsig is highlighting what > they're talking about - what they're describing is DQ. When people talk > about freedom the reason why they make it such a hallowed thing is because > what they're really talking about is DQ. So I agree with all that. But > what I'm talking about the is *content* of those descriptions. And those > descriptions aren't always the same. Different cultures describe DQ and > reflect it differently. There is value in both descriptions or types of > freedom. There is value in being free from all patterns and there is value in > improving a culture so that it can respond to DQ. > > That's why I disagreed where you wrote : > > "I would say 99% of people who talk about freedom have never heard of Dynamic > Quality. What they are talking about isn't really freedom in the sense that > Dynamic Quality is free of all patterns. But if they understood the MOQ, then > that is what they would mean." > > Because there is another type of freedom which isn't interested in being free > from all patterns but just inflexible social ones. I think some would see > value in this freedom and not necessarily agree with you that it is only this > 'freedom from all patterns' which is valuable. Dan: Thank you for the explanation. The way I read the Lila quote it seemed to say that when people talk about freedom that wasn't what they really meant. They were talking about freedom from rigid social patterns. But the reason freedom is so hallowed is that it means Dynamic Quality. But how can someone who has never read Lila and never heard of the MOQ know about Dynamic Quality and what it means? Anyway, there is probably no right answer... > >>> >>> Yes I would say so. And that 'Dynamic' freedom is not to be found by >>> changing sq or doing something else. It is found by 'waking up' as you >>> say and mastering the static quality which is in front of you until the DQ >>> which is there all along is revealed. >> >> Dan: >> I would say there is nothing to master. > > I would agree. It just depends on your perspective. To say there is > something to master is to say there are patterns in the way of DQ. To say > there is nothing to master is to speak from the perspective of DQ, much like > a Zen master would do. That is, it is intellectually valuable to say there > is something to master for, from the perspective of the intellect or the > 'small self', those patterns are there waiting to be mastered.. From the > perspective of the big self (or DQ) there's 'nothing to master. > > These two perspectives I think point to your hesitancy to agree with me that > the path to DQ is mastery. You are looking at it from the perspective of DQ > going - no there isn't a path! But I'm speaking intellectually for the sake > of philosophical discussion. No matter the Zen Master it is fair to say he > has mastered his art no? Dan: I would say no but I am not a Zen master so I wouldn't know. I go to ball games. Before each game all the players are out there warming up and taking batting practice. To me, these guys are no doubt masters of their art; I see how hard they work at it every day. So have they mastered their art? If you asked them, I think they would say no. They could always be better. > >>>>> I see. I suppose this is a good question to ask yourself.. Often times >>>>> internal conflict like this can be healthy and produce a higher quality >>>>> work. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Sure, there's that. On the other hand, when one gets hung up on the >>>> 'can I do better in explaining' the work is never done. I get to the >>>> point where I just know I have done all I can do. What is interesting >>>> about the ebook revolution is an author can easily go in and change >>>> the manuscript at a later point in time whereas a print book is much >>>> more difficult to update and change. >>> >>> That is interesting, I guess with ebooks it will become more about how >>> static an author sees his work and less about the physical limitations of >>> change. And it's good that you (eventually) find that end point too… >> >> Dan: >> Ah, the end point... a friend of mine asked me recently if I was >> nearly completed with my writings. I said no. I'll never be completed. >> Once something is finished another project arises. So I have to keep >> on writing. He seemed to think it was an affliction, a sickness... >> this coming from a guy who likes to sit in front of his tv each night >> and consume a twelve pack of beer. Maybe we all have our afflictions. >> >> I would say it depends upon the author, yes. Some time ago I bought a >> book by an author who sells quite a number of them. To my chagrin I >> came across multiple grammatical mistakes as well as misuse of words >> rendering whole paragraphs nonsensical. When I wrote her an email >> detailing these mistakes she got quite defensive with me, angry in >> fact. >> >> She said since it was one of her older books she didn't care about the >> mistakes. People were buying it anyway. She said her time was very >> valuable and better spent writing new books than going back over her >> old stuff. Now, myself, I appreciate when someone brings these things >> to my attention. They are easy to fix. It would have taken her an hour >> at most, probably less, to fix the mistakes and upload a new version. >> >> I suspect that wasn't the real reason why she didn't want to do it. I >> embarrassed her by calling her out even though that wasn't my >> intention. So these days I no longer inform authors of their mistakes. >> I roll with them like everyone else. But I still appreciate when >> someone takes their time to write me about mistakes I have made. > > Well, it's a good attitude to have. Confronting ourselves and our views can > be hard. As I wrote earlier, it's painful to break up our static patterns.. Dan: There are lots of painful things in the world. But there are people out there who are genuinely willing to help. One should not paint them all with the same brush. > >>> Thanks again Dan, >>> >>> I'm interested in your thoughts on freedom here as, at some point - >>> possibly soon(or not), we should be able to go back to our original >>> discussion with a greater understanding. >> >> Dan: >> Well, hopefully I have laid out my thoughts in a manner which you will >> find fulfilling. If not, please let me know where you disagree. And I >> am quite at a loss as to what our original discussion was about but I >> am sure we can discover that when the time is ripe. > > I do find it fulfilling. I enjoy how, speaking with you, we find small > differences in perspective and these lead me to a greater understanding, and > hopefully a better articulation, of the MOQ as a result. Also, I believe our > original discussion is related to this one in regards to our respective views > on mastery. Hopefully my articulation here has improved things somewhat... Dan: As always, it has been a pleasure. I thank you for taking your time to respond so thoughtfully. For any discussion to bear fruit it would seem to behoove each party to learn from the other. I am learning much. Thanks again, 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
