> [David previously] > But sadly, if you feel that this discussion has ran its course then so be it > but I have found it very rewarding. I enjoy the challenge of explaining > myself and I can't say enough how much I've appreciated your openness towards > what I've been saying. > > [Arlo] > See, David, you say this, but all you've done is exactly restate the exact > points I've already responded to. All you've done is simply say "you're > speaking statically" over and over, as if this makes sense. > > First, it confuses Paul's point into "static and Dynamic". So let's go back > there first and clear that up. The "two contexts" Paul spoke of are related > to experience. In one, maybe the "ZMM context" although even this is a little > simplistic, patterns emanate from the experiential moment. There is no > evolutionary timeline where inorganic patterns precede biological patterns. > Both emerge simultaneously from the moment of experience. In the second, > maybe the "LILA context", we have the evolutionary trajectory of Quality, > wherein it makes sense to say "inorganic patterns preceded biological > patterns. As I've said, this is a bit simplistic, but the conflation you've > made to "static context" and "Dynamic context" makes no sense.
[djh] We're all describing the same thing and see the value in the fundamentally two different types of Quality as described in Lila. > Second, you continue to use "killing patterns" as the purpose for engagement > in a philosophy forum, suggesting again that its just that I don't understand > you mean "quieting". Of course I do. Let's use the example you brought up, > the tea ceremony. In this, the patterns that are "put to sleep" are the > habituated activity of the ceremony. During the ceremony, the participants > are on such auto-pilot that they have NO CONSCIOUS AWARENESS of their > activity. Even the mechanic in Pirsig's example has hit a state of mastery > where he is performing actions without being consciously aware of them. Is > this what you're suggesting, that we master these ideas so well we can > participate here without being consciously aware we are doing so? [djh] No. I'm talking pragmatically. I'm suggesting that we master these ideas so well that we no longer need to re-ask questions because our appreciation of the harmony of these ideas has improved. > [Arlo continues] > A few weeks ago, out for a ride, I was actually mulling over some ideas I am > working on regarding Vygotsky's writings. At one point, about 30 minutes > later, I stopped for gas and realized I had no mental recollection of the > last 30 minutes. I navigated down a ravine into the little town of > Sinnemahoning, my mind undistracted by attending to the riding, it became a > 'ceremony' and left me free to follow Dynamic Quality. When was the last time > you participated here and later realized you had no recollection of it, you > know you did it, but you did it on such a mastery-habituated level that you > paid it no conscious awareness at all? [djh] Not recently. I do know that over time my understanding of your ideas and others on this forum has improved and I can understand you a lot better without always being 'conscious' of all the previous intellectual disharmony and how it eventually became harmonious. > [Arlo continues] > And, the tea ceremony works in this abstract "non-evolutionary" sense because > it is such a controlled experience. There is no 'broken cup' that needs to be > fixed, or 'something wrong' with the tea leaves that needs to be figured out. > This is, to me, precisely the sort of artificial and detached activity that > takes 'everyday living' out of the equation. If your misunderstood 'dynamic > context' has at its goal the state of perpetual and ongoing meditation, the > quieting of patterns as an end in and of itself, where (as you said) the > monks have lived for hundreds of years without any evolution or improvement > or betterness, then you can count me out. [djh] The MOQ is different to Zen for the MOQ embraces the importance of static patterns. As the quote goes.. "The MOQ says, as does Buddhism, that the best place on the wheel of karma is the hub and not the rim where one is thrown about by the gyrations of everyday life. But the MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the quantum forces. In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay attention to it. Today it's not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, just as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to propel it, the cart would not move forward at all." In this way - it is important in the MOQ, unlike Zen, what patterns we master. What patterns we pick up and say, 'I'm going to work through this'. A great example of one such pattern is the Koan - 'Does Lila have quality?' Thinking about this question over and over again RMP eventually came at the Dynamic insight which I have quoted many times already. > [Arlo continues] > In BOTH contexts Paul describes, there is an unalienable 'betterness' at the > heart of the experiential moment. In ZMM, the first context, there is an even > greater emphasis played on how listening to, and responding to, that > betterness makes us better mechanics, better welders, better riders, better > teachers, better students, better fathers and better sculptors. We are > 'artists' because the oscillation between experiential moment and the > analogues we have evolves those analogues. The mechanic does not become > artisinal simply by meditating or quieting his analogues, he becomes > artisinal through the ongoing, lived, experiential oscillation between > openness and (re)creation. [djh] I agree. However the MOQ provides us with a language in which we can describe how that 'openness' and 'creation' occurs. The openness through the killing of static quality and revealing of DQ which is there all along. The creation happens quite naturally as DQ cannot go on alone forever. > [Arlo continues] > In some ways I think you're trying to map the "two contexts" onto a "Western" > and "Eastern" context. But what you fail to see is that Pirsig's ideas are > not about casting off that "static West" for the "Dynamic East", but about a > resolution that really brings the best of both together into harmony. The > "tea ceremony" is replaced with the "repair shop", and in doing so Pirsig's > ideas become about the everyday real experience and how both traditionally > West and traditionally East perspectives, when integrated, can IMPROVE that > everyday real experience. [djh] Yes and I agree with that Arlo. They improve everyday experience. Both contexts are important and the MOQ places them beautifully together in harmony. As written above, the mastery of the Eastern perspective is best coupled with a concern of the comparative quality of patterns from the Western perspective. 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
