Jason writes:
> I believe some people are getting posted out because the subject matter is
>distorting the metaphysics of quality. I have had a couple of people write to me
>complaining that what basically is a simple and pure idea is being turned into new
>age mumbo jumbo. Anyway I thought I would be the scapegoat and speak for some others.
>
> Now back to the point, I want to talk about some ideas. First, I was wondering what
>different people thought of meditation to reach a state of dynamic quality. It seems
>to me that in Zen the buddhist are trying to reach a state of no-mind. I believe
>this is very similar to dynamic quality, but wanted to get some other opinons.
>
Rob (I) writes:
I agree wholeheartedly. This might be off topic, but I think we do not need the state
of "no-mind" as much as we need attention and sensitivity to experience AND mind. I
don't try to "negate the self" as much as closely observing my good and bad thoughts.
Sometimes "I" gets me in the way with my many desires, insecurities and so forth
causing me to be insensitive to quality. Othertimes, my own thoughts are of value.
When I think to myself, "Gee I really am
hungry, I wonder where I should go to eat", I might be less sensitive to the things
going on around me, but so what! I think it boils down to this: do my thoughts
interfere with my observation of quality (as homophobia, materialism, insecurity, ect)
or do my thoughts initiate spontaneously from observing quality (what can I do to help
this person I see suffering ?, Where can I get some food to feed this hunger I am
feeling, etc.)
Jason:
> I don't know if Pirsig wants us to experience this state frequently or if he is just
>drawing a theory up to explain reality. But all of the fancy talk about DQ always
>falls short of the mark.
Rob:
Jason, this is where my intuition is and I think this is very important. When I
meditate, I am much more at peace, energetic, creative etc. I've spent hours reading
all these posts and trying to figure out what is dynamic, what is static, what is what
level, and I get tired and confused.
Pirisig's theory of observed value has been of great help. It does not help me
observe quality any better, but it does help when my mind is thinking about what
science is telling me, and so forth. It is also intellectually stimulating, which is
a value in itself.
I have tried very hard to understand the levels, but I have always failed or given up.
Even used as a guide to go with experience, I think they are wrong. Take the Clinton
thing. Someone who has cheated a little his/herself might twist the MOQ as support:
"Clinton is in trouble because our intellectual levels are still fighting our social
levels. If people realized that sex is just sex, we would not have these problems.
We are in an age of birthcontrol,
condoms, etc, and would not need monogamy if we practised safer sex and if we were not
so insecure about our partner's natural and healthy sexual urges." Someone who has
been hurt by an extramarital affair might twist the MOQ this way: "Clinton has let
biological quality overcome social quality and intellectual quality. He did not think
about what he was doing. His biological actions have hurt his wife, his children, and
his lies have focussed the dynamic
powers of government away from the real issues at hand: poverty, environment, and so
forth".
How does one find truth by going through these types of arguments? I don't think
people go to the MOQ first. The briefly think about what they "feel" is right and
then pick a way for the MOQ to support it.. I think it would be better to skip the
second part. As for Clinton: feel what it is like to have desire, feel what it is
like to be intimate with one person. Imagine what it would have been like if your
father was caught cheating. Imagine what it
would be like to experience an open marriage. Observe insecurities, traditions, and
past experiences that have caused one to place judgement upon the above experiences.
When one becomes more intimate with the issue, truth will be clearer. Be
nonjudgemental. "Where there is love, there is also clarity".
I made a post a month ago and did not get any replies: This is how I interpret the
levels:
1. Life is better than non-life.
2. Groups of life are better than one life.
3. Any reasonable idea (no definition of reasonable) is potentially
better than 1 and 2.
4. Anything "dynamic" could be better than 1, 2 and 3 but "dynamic" is undefinable.
I'm not sure, but I suspect there were no replies because people felt animosity in my
tone (or perhaps I am saying something stupid). I am ever thankful that there is a
group like this to listen to my ideas and that I can listen to their ideas. I either
want to teach or be taught. This is not about "me" or "you" being right or wrong. I
just want to make sense, and this is what my mind is coming up with. Anyone at the
other end of this wire, PLEASE help
me. Am I missing something important here?? Why am I going nuts trying to equate the
levels (intellectual examination) with experience. When thinking about what I am
saying, do the levels still work?
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
