Hi Dan, >> 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.
Well yeah… It's undefined betterness.. We can only judge whether it is better afterwards… In this case it's chaotic. >> 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. This is like the thing in Zen, when when you end suffering, do you really not feel any pain? In Zen the pain continues, but the pain no longer has the hold over you it once did… >>> 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? Upon re-reading the section, he hadn't mastered the technique. He made an adjustment to the 'egoless' technique in that he simply wanted to get a good result and was in a hurry because he had been in Japan for 4 years already.. The right way of Zen Archery is purposelessness, not the result. By being purposeless 'it' shoots, not Herrigel by making an adjustment to his technique.. >> 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. . >> 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. No worries. >> >> 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. Yes, there's that too.. The attachment which goes with any pattern is suffering.. For nothing lasts forever.. >>> 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. Yes. Purposeless on purpose.. >> 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. Yes, that's right. But the irony is we need to 'constantly do' to lose sight of it.. Comes back to being purposeless on purpose.. Just forget everything, including thoughts of mastery and master the patterns.. >>> 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. That's right and remember that's why I say if we were to speak intellectually - Enlightenment exists. This separates us from Dynamic Quality and gives things names but this is discussing philosophy not the mystic reality. >>>>>> 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… Indeed. A very real risk. Things can always get better, no matter how much we have 'mastered' them. >>> 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. Yep, or maybe it will flourish up again.. Time will tell.. > You are welcome. I thank you too, David. Perhaps we might speak again > in the not too distant future… Yes, like now :-) 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
