Hello everyone On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >>> 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. > > DQ, without the stability of sq, becomes chaotic. Remember the artists > you've met who just dabble in lots of different arts... Chaos.
Dan: Well, perhaps. I would say our response to Dynamic Quality is following what is better. Is it better to flit about from one project to another, never giving any one of them our all? Actually, I take it as a sign of a type of mental illness, a bi-polar disorder, if you will. So these folk are not following Dynamic Quality so much as they are following biological patterns that dictate to them what is better. They are succumbing to an illness. If you want to call that chaos, you might well be right. But it isn't a response to what is better in a Dynamic way. > >>>> 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. > > But this is my point. I don't think you could get too much more rigid social > patterns than Zen Monks.. It is because those patterns are so rigid that > they have the mastery of their lives down to a fine art. Dan: So they are not escaping static quality suffering. > . > >>>>> 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. > > It's interesting because I would say that the issue wasn't that Herrigal has > 'mastered' the art. The issue was that Herrigal cheated and thus skipped the > care taken required to master the art. Herrigal was focused only on the > result and ignored the journey required to master the art. If you just focus > on results then art becomes meaningless. Dan: But he perfected the art. His technique was every bit as perfect as the master's. He must have cared very much to put so much time into mastering the art of archery to reach that point, no? >>>>> 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? > > Well, it would depend on what you mean by 'overlook'. When we say someone > has mastered something, to me, it means that they have what they are doing > down to a fine art. But mastery is not really the path, it is a description > of the path. When someone trying to master something, thoughts of mastery > won't really help. The important thing about mastery is really the care > which goes into it.. Dan: Yes I can go along with this. > >>> 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. > > That's funny. Yeah, where I live is much the same… That is it's much like > New York or something, where you can go to just different parts of the city > and be in what can seem like another country.. The great thing about the MOQ > is that it shows that each of these different values are not biological, > which is mostly just surface appearance stuff, but cultural. There's > cultural values which create this diversity, and between drastically > different cultures there are key differences in cultural values. I think > Pirsig highlighted the key difference in cultural values between the East and > West by showing how each culture values freedom - The strength of both > cultures in the one metaphysical system - beautiful. Dan: That is an interesting take on Lila. I appreciate you taking your time to explain it. > >>>> 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. > > All patterns are suffering in the Buddhist sense in that they are fixed, > whereas the ultimately undefined nature of the universe is not. In order to > experience the ultimately undefined nature of the universe these patterns > must die and this is where the suffering comes in. If you are eating a nice > meal then the suffering is in the fixed nature of eating a nice meal. The > creating of things as static(with can't be avoided) is what brings the > suffering. We can free ourselves from these patterns by doing something > else, or we can free ourselves from them by mastering them.. Certainly it is > true that bad patterns cause more suffering than good ones but even those > good patterns are degenerate to some extent and still cause a certain amount > of suffering simply due to their fixed nature. Dan: I would say suffering is finding the fly in the bottom of one's bowl after having enjoyed the soup. > >> 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? > > So long as there is stability to the suffering which they are enduring then > yes. If you work at something long enough it can be mastered no matter what > it is.. You know the rules to mastery.. Bring yourself back to the present > moment and 'just do'. Dan: Everyone is busy doing. Rather, practice not-doing. > >> 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? > > Context can help. There's no doubt. But I don't think isn't dependent on > context. You can master anything, with the exception to that being a > chaotic situation whereby things change so rapidly that hope of mastery or > much else is impossible… Hence the shovelling coals into the gates of Hell. > You could master that, if that's all you did.. Dan: Right practice would seem to preclude allowing chaos to overcome one's awareness. I should think right practice would be more about not-doing rather than the doing. What I mean to say is: by constantly doing we lose sight of the source. > >>> 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… > > Everyone experiences Quality, they just don't realise it. You may have heard > the Buddhist saying that everyone is enlightened they just don't realise it. > It's much the same... Dan: Well yes. That's why I said there is no enlightenment. We already have that which is sought after so fervently. > >>>>> 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. > > Yes, that makes sense. We're all only human, we all make mistakes.. We can > alway be better. Does this make your description of them as masters of their > art meaningless then? I don't think it does. There is something to be said > for someone who has mastered their art. Dan: Sure... as long as the master doesn't become full of themselves and cease improving... > > >> 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. > > Indeed. Though I sense we are close to a conclusion to the discussion on the > Creative Freedom found in Jazz through mastery… Dan: Like everything arises, flourishes a short while, and then passes away I suppose this discussion is coming to an end as well. It is ending on a good note. > > Thanks Dan, You are welcome. I thank you too, David. Perhaps we might speak again in the not too distant future... 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
