Glenn, thanks for the kick,
> Glen replies:
> I think the MoQ is quite clear in saying that individuals can access
> dynamic quality (Zen 3:16, ok elliot added this), say by sitting on a hot
stove. You will not translate
> this into words and then move, you experience a low quality situation
> and act accordingly. The very dynamicness of the event cuts through
> any static intrepretations.
Elliot:
I might add here that i think words = concepts, or are so closely related
that they need not be distinguished here (we can debate this if need be).
Or rather, words are the verbal expression of concepts, which are the root
of what im talking about. Concepts are not absolutes, they are tools to
intellectually understand reality, but the picture is based on phantasms
In the situation with the stove i agree, words play little if any role in
that. For a reason that i do not know, words seem to direct experience
most when experience is visual, and a bit but less if the experience is
auditory. I think this is because we learn mostly visually, where as the
sense of touch is left more to its own discovery of the world. I admit to
not knowing much about linguistics, but i do know asmall ammount (maybe in
a few months i can make some better arguments). The language we have sets
up categories and classifications. We can divide a room up into chair,
window, door, etc. Thus the space takes order despite the fact that the
objects maybe forign. Who claims these divisions to be absolute? where is
the line that seperates chair from floor? the structure of language and
its classifications help (if not force) you to draw these lines. These
things may infact not be seperate things (as i proposed in my visulization
of the moq), but woven together in a complex way. Many buddhist sutras
claim exactly this. Now, if i want to sit down, the language divisions
help tremendously, but if i want to experience "unadulterated" quality,
well, my world is shaped by english which is not fundemental to reality.
I submit myself as an example. I fell in love with the MoQ very quickly.
I read zen first and then Lila, but seperated by many years and i didnt get
lila at all, it was interesting but the ideas were just dangling. I read
Zen again and my understanding of the moq crystalized in a very short time.
Having words like static pattern of quality (and especially the concept)
did change the way i experience things. I say now my experience is very
different and it is the words i use to arrange and divide my world that
make it so.
Glenn:
A static pattern is required to gain experience.
While one event may seem very much more dynamic I doubt if there is such an
event as a experience of dynamic quality and nothing else. Thoughout the
peyote experience Pirsig's body did not dissolve (although Pirsig may have
thought it did! ;) ) and this would at least provide some kind of static
pattern with which to gain experience.
Elliot:
A static pattern is required to GAIN experience, because the gain is
memory, which is a static pattern. Static patterns are not required to
HAVE an experience. Well, actually maybe it is, the requirements for
having an experience are not set that i know of. Humans need bodies, but
do electrons as bits of chaos (or whatever) respond to quality and
experience it? But Pirsigs peyote adventure had no static intellectual
pattern (the best he could remember of his thoughts was a short bit about
indians, hardly 6 hours worth of static experiences), and perhaps the
social level fell quite abit to, as his perception was not in words but of
words (beyond them looking back) but trancendant of words. His experience
is more the mystic thing im talking about, but not absoultly because his
enlightenemnt was shortlived. Wether you think experience can consist of
only DQ or not, well, i think experience is only DQ, and the static
patterns happen when our perception (right word?) follows the subject
(self) and object that that experience creates (so does perception of
Static quality have a dynamic quality, i have no idea, maybe perception of
sq wasnt the right word). i cant tell if i made a point. sorry
>Elliot wrote:
"I think we dont dissagree on the quality of MoQ as a
metaphysics, but i do dissagree that any doctrine (static pattern) will
lead to transendance of static patterns. MoQ is a discription and it is a
burden to experience to fit everything into its divsions, because as i say,
the world is fundementally undivided."
Glen replies:
What about 'addition'? It's unbounded but still a pattern.
Elliot:
What about addition? It is a static pattern and i've never heard a mystic
talk about math. Does the static pattern of addition trancend a static
pattern (itself), or does it set up a static relationship between objects
and subjects in the world? Is this relationship absoulte? or just
consistant within itself?
Glen replies:
It's fascinating the power you ascribe to language. You say it is a real
hinderance to experiencing reality and then want to employ it to break free
your mind free of language?
Elliot:
Yes, language has a fascinating power. It is the system with which we make
static patterns (intellectually and possibly socailly, im not sure
exactly). When one dwells in it, it is a real hinderance to experience,
which is why the MoQ is to some extent a hinderance, but not a too bad of
one because its a static pattern that values dynamic change wherever it can
be found (even a dynamic change that would negate itself, which is its true
strength, it admits itself to be a crutch to those like us who need it).
Dwelling in language is dwelling in static patterns, and by working with
these static patterns (koans) one can eventually see their crutch like
nature. How else would one break free of language but by grappling with it?
Glen replies:
In all honesty I think you are kidding yourself. I think these teachers
do have a map and do have a pattern to what they teach even if it is not
articulated and not transmitted. This is not to say that I think the
experience of being a student of these teachings is not transforming and
even valuable. I would urge a lot of caution in attempting to implement
the practices of Mr. Casteneda. Unless you really know what your doing
(or really value living dangerously), Datura/Jimsom Weed is not a user
friendly interface.
Elliot:
no need to worry, im not trying to implement anything. And although i am
kidding myself to an extent my point was that the teacher does not read
from a cirriculum but interacts with the student and makes decisions
dynamically, whereas a textbook does not respond to you. The teachings are
not meant to be memorized and internalized (one doesnt just say, ok all
things are true yet they are false, or develope a framework around it to
explain it because then they just internalize the conflict). The student is
seeking the moon, the teacher sticks out his finger (the words of the
teachings) and the student looks at the finger puzzledly untill he realizes
that the finger is not the moon, but the teacher is infact pointing to it.
(how do you view words? as truth or as tools for pointing to the truth?
honestly?)
Oh this is so long and boring to read, sorry.
Lastly, static patterns are nessicary for life (which is itself a static
pattern), i admit this. Although liberation from them is the highest goal,
if we want to live we must submit to them atleast in part. I say however
that many hold concepts to be reality rather than tools for grasping at it,
and this is a hinderance to liberation. Does the "chair" have a chair
nature? or do we ascribe a chair nature to a corner of exsistance, set it
up as a permenant "chair" and never think twice about it?
Elliot
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST