David X 3, Struan, and John; WOW. I must say my mind is reeling after reading the recent discussion. That's good though, hopefully it will lead to some DQ. What's interesting in this discussion is that the various responses of the participants illustrate the very principles of the MoQ. My first post to this discussion group was an admonition to remember the Dynamic, and if I recall it wasn't sugar-coated. I must confess I was a little intoxicated at the time, both on the MoQ (I had been reading Lila) and a couple glasses of wine. Don't get me wrong, I understand that static quality is indispensible. In fact, my own nature probably tends more toward the static than to the dynamic. I think that is why I'm attracted to mysticism; I feel more trapped than most by my static filters. But the whole purpose of mysticism, whether it be in the guise of Zen Buddhism, Sufi whirling dervishes, ecstatic Christians, or Native Americans on vision quests or visiting with Mescalito is to directly experience Dynamic Quality. There certainly are vast differences between various methods of experiencing DQ. Some seek to experience It as manifested in daily routines. Others seek to experience It directly through temporary disruption of static patterns and then to return to normal routines enriched by their experiences. I don't believe that any one school is objectively right or wrong. A particular school may be wrong for a particular individual. Each one is merely a different path to the top of the same mountain (to borrow the familiar metaphor). Balance between static quality and Dynamic Quality seems to be the key. Too much holding onto static patterns leads to stagnation and degeneracy. Too much seeking of Dynamic Quality leads to madness. Pirsig had his own bout with madness from which the entire MoQ seemed to originate. Personally, I don't know if I want to go quite that far. However, I do believe that anyone who pursues a mystic vision must understand that the risk of going too far (i.e. insane) is very real. That is one reason that I think avoiding drugs is probably wise for most people seeking enlightenment. That doesn't mean that I don't think they can't work. I just think it's taking a bigger risk. But I am glad that there are certain people willing to take such risks. I'm better because of the risk that Pirsig took. I'm better for the risk Siddhartha Gautama took. For both of these, the risk worked out, they were enlightened (although Pirsig seems to indicate he believes he was on the brink of enlightenment but had it ripped away from him by the intervention of society via ECT). Both returned to attempt to teach what they had learned. Buddha was deified and is still worshipped, but more importantly he devised static patterns to capture the DQ he experienced (the eightfold path). Pirsig obviously stimulated each of us involved in this discussion group and millions of others to re-think the way we view the world. The experiences of Buddha and Pirsig demonstrate the balance between static quality and Dynamic Quality. Each individual is faced with the hard facts of life and either suffers until it ends, gives in to despair, anesthetizes him/herself with any number of addictions (including food, booze, drugs, sex, sports, social distraction, religion,...), or finds a way to balance the chaotic, potentially destructive, but imminently beautiful Dynamic Quality with the orderly, potentially stagnating, but reassuringly useful static quality. Well I've spent far too long reading, thinking, and writing tonight, but I'm glad I did it. Now I must be off to submit my biological patterns to a good thrashing so that I can increase my social quality and also because my intellect tells me it will help me to live a longer, healthier life (in other words, I have to go run a few miles). Later, T.R. Ellis MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
