> [djh previously] > This is true if you are interested in the quality of static patterns but this > is not what it means to truly perfect something. > > [Arlo] > As one moves towards 'betterness' or 'perfection', the DQ/SQ interplay Point > B is better than Point A. How would you suggest 'perfecting' something > without this happening?
[djh] I wouldn't. > [djh previously] > Here you seem to assume that Quality, intellectual or otherwise, can only > come about as a result of comparison and evaluation between static quality > things. > > [Arlo] > Well, creation builds off existing patterns, the impetus to create, the > pre-intellectual source of the creation, is Dynamic Quality, but the forms > that emerge in its wake are made possible by the existing static patterns. It > would not have been possible, for example, for a caveman to write ZMM. > Phaedrus' insights, inspired by Dynamic Quality, built upon the existing > strata of patterns of his experience. [djh] Right, that is how it appears on reflection. But that is not how things actually are... "To the extent that one's behaviour is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behaviour is free." On reflection it might seem like there are certain limitations to Dynamic Quality but these are imagined. Dynamic Quality creates static quality - not the other way around. > [djh previously] > But I can think of a time when that isn't necessarily the case - Imagine the > first thought ever. How did that come about if it is a result of an > intellectual comparison between oppositional patterns? > > [Arlo] > I imagine the first "thought" would be comparable to the first 'inorganic > pattern', or the first 'biological pattern'. The human body did not spring > into existence from the inorganic milieu. The first "thought" compared to, > say, the thoughts you have today would be like comparing the first > prokaryotes to the modern human physiology. At that level, though, the > comparison of betterness was between 'to be' and 'not to be', so there was > contrasted betterness, even if it wasn't intra-level. [djh] Such a contrast only happens after the fact. 'Not be' cannot be a thought. If 'Not be' was a thought then 'to be' isn't the first thought. I think your focus on the comparative quality of the patterns is a mistake. If you're continually comparing this static quality with that static quality then you aren't going to master anything - including your thoughts on things. Thought's aren't a result of a 'balance' or a comparison. All we can say is that they emerge from DQ and are better than nothingness. > [djh previously] > The goal of Zen is enlightenment which is brought about through the mastery > and perfection of the static patterns but those patterns or the new patterns > created are not the goal - the elimination of them is. > > [Arlo] > If you're not a better person at Point B than Point A, if the "enlightenment" > does not- in some way- create 'betterness', then I'd say its not > enlightenment at all. Its simply "going to sleep". [djh] If you think enlightenment will make you a better person then you will never be enlightened.. "We think that we’re going to get something from [Meditation]– that it will lower our blood pressure, reduce our stress, calm us down, or enhance our concentration. And, we tell ourselves, if we meditate long enough, and in just the right way, it might even bring us to enlightenment. All of this is delusion. As long as we insist that meditation must have some use or purpose or meaning, or fulfil us in certain ways, we fail to understand it. As my teacher (and many other teachers before him) used to say, 'meditation is useless'." > [djh previously] > I see that you're focused on the quality of the static patterns which are > created. > > [Arlo] > No, I'm focused on the process by which static patterns are created, the > evolutionary 'force'. [djh] Yes I see that. Call it process if you like, but this 'process' is still some statically defined thing. > [djh previously] > But my point is a motorcycle mechanic isn't going to be a very good mechanic > if he is continually judging the quality of these patterns and not trying to > work through mastering them. This mastery is not achieved by simply focusing > on the quality of this or that static pattern but through the perfection and > thus killing of them. > > [Arlo] > You're only seeing half the landscape, David. Simply 'killing patterns' does > not make him a better mechanic, any more than being 'stuck' fixating on > static patterns. It is through the breaking of stuckness and the creation of > better patterns that he becomes a better mechanic at Point B than he was at > Point A. [djh] Better patterns *are* created as a result of killing of patterns. That is how they're created. When patterns are killed there is nowhere left to go but towards *undefined* betterness. > [djh previously] > Right, but a *Zen monk* who re-enters the world with 'something better'? > When does that ever happen? > > [Arlo] > Are you saying that Zen monks are not better, in any way, after they 'reject' > patterns than before? There is nothing gained, nothing created, nothing made > better, nothing improved, by this act? They gain no vision, no insights, no > wisdom, no better understanding than they had before? [djh] No, as I keep saying - that is not their goal so from their point of view it is irrelevant whether they do this or not. "The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." > [djh previously] > I mean, just look at a Zen temple. They're mostly mastering the same > patterns they did back in the 13th Century. > > [Arlo] > But the monks are no 'better' than they were before they were monks? > 'Betterness' does not just have mean 'physical objects', but this sort of > stagnation you describe, where their insights, wisdom, vision, thoughts, > understandings, are not made any 'better', in any way, by the experience... > well, its unimpressive. [djh] I don't deny that the monks may well be 'better' before they were monks but this is not their goal. We can only say this after the fact. Before the fact enlightenment is some kind of death experience because it requires killing patterns which we identify as 'us'. The focus is not ego boosting 'better' but a death of the ego. After a death of the ego through mastery, a new Dynamic insight can be found. > [djh previously] > Yes Lila simply created contrary, low quality patterns to the things which > had transpired that she didn't like - aka her Child dying. However these > patterns were still 'new', but just not that good because she hadn't worked > through the problem. I'm happy to discuss this further if you like... > > [Arlo] > I'd say 'different', but not 'new'. I'll get a new thread going about this > later. [djh] Well I think this is directly related to our current discussion. Lila created simply contradictory patterns, she hadn't worked through them or mastered them and so never created anything completely new she had rejected the patterns of the culture to create her own but they were new nonetheless - albeit of low quality. > [djh previously] > I agree with the gist of what you say above but I'd like to dwell on this > sentence.. > > "..[There are some folks] in this forum not simply walking around saying > 'reject' but who are using the insights gained during that time of rejection > to actively create something better. " > > Clearly your focus here is on creation of static patterns. But I don't think > you can only create anything of value if you are just focused on the creation > of static quality. I mean creation can come about not just as a result of a > rejection and subsequent creation of static patterns, but as you've also > pointed out - as a result of the killing of present static patterns by > mastering them. > > [Arlo] > Well, again, I have no doubt that meditation and ritual can free the mind to > Dynamic Quality. But my point was that, sure, go do this. Go kill your > patterns, go sit, do a tea ceremony, dance by the fire, whatever 'ritual' it > is that frees your mind, but if you're not interested in using whatever > insights this experience brings you to create something better, then why come > here? You aren't 'killing patterns' by contributing to a philosophy forum. It > serves no purpose to say "I am logging onto the MD list so I can kill my > intellectual patterns". Go. Be free of patterns. No one is stopping you. The > moon is full. Go dance. Kill your patterns, and if that's all you want to do, > then run with the wind. But its idiotic to join a philosophy discussion > group, which is about creating better intellectual patterns, and then do > nothing but condemn that activity. Our lives are not entirely 'here', we all > go off and 'flow', free our minds, maybe some do yoga, maybe some meditate, > or smoke peyote, or jog, or ride motorcycles, or fix them, or whatever... > But, if you want to 'kill intellectual patterns', and that's all you want to > do, why leave that meditation and join a philosophy forum? Unless you think > you're a savior of souls, here to save the immoral intellectual infidels from > their staticness. [djh] But you can kill patterns doing intellectual things such as Motorcycle Maintenance and Philosophical discussion.. "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower." Heck, this place is nothing but a bunch of Zen Koans and we are putting these 'case histories' to sleep by continually going over them and getting our thinking on them perfect.. > [djh previously] > It is good to be interested in the static quality which is created, but > alternatively it is good to value the DQ which creates that static quality. > Both are important. > > [Arlo] > Sure, which is why when I am NOT here, I am often seeking to clear my mind. > But I do that, and then come here to see how that experience can contribute > to creating/improving better intellectual patterns surrounding Pirsig's > ideas. I may not succeed, but 'killing patterns' is not what this forum is > for, its for 'building'. [djh] I disagree. I think that in order to build we must kill patterns.. We are here to kill intellectual patterns. That is, we are here to master them which such proficiency that they are gone. There in the most monotonous boredom of going over and over these questions the DQ and resulting new insights can be found.. "Does Lila have quality?". "What is the distinction between DQ and sq?". "Is killing patterns anti-intellectual?" Each of these is like a koan which we we go over and over again and as we go over them our thinking on them becomes more and more coherent until.. "Biologically she does, socially she doesn't. Obviously! Evolutionary morality just splits that whole question open like a watermelon. Since biological and social patterns have almost nothing to do with each other, Lila does and Lila does not have quality at the same time. That's exactly the feeling she gave too - a sort of mixed feeling of quality and no quality at the same time. That was the reason. How simple it was. That's the mark of a high-quality theory. It doesn't just answer the question in some complex round-about way. It dissolves the question, so you wonder why you ever asked it." 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
