Three Davids ... no wonder I have trouble coping.
I was in the right disenchanted mood for David Thomas' critical thoughts on how to get more
Dynamic. And I do agree with him that the dynamic is all around, to be encountered rather
than sought. But how? Even if 'tother David is right and mysticism is the answer, it's only the
answer for the mystic. Or show me a sure road to enlightenment. We go round and round on
this issue. But I will be adamant about one thing. Unless you define dynamic quality as
mysticism, which I think is cheating, it is quite clear that the dynamic is encountered outside
of mysticism. It is encountered in 'flow', when I am engrossed in some task that extends me
without overly stressing me. It is encountered in artistic creativity, and in that encounter with
meaning read 'between the lines' that Krishnamurti calls intelligence. When I rage against
injustice, or really smell the roses, I am encountering the dynamic. So when David Buchanan
suggests that a non-mystic reading of Pirsig must be 'incomprehensible', I beg to differ.
David B says that we are talking about "an" experience. I think this is the key to his position.
"People who have had such experiences" know what Pirsig is on about, while the rest of us
don't. Like David T I am wary of the drug route to "experience". (In theological terms this is
described as 'cheap grace'.) But some of what David B says does attract me. "We are
trapped by our senses, trapped by our own identity in society, and trapped by our beliefs and
ideas. These are the things that give shape and meaning to our lives. And yet freedom, real
freedom, not just political liberty or freedom from oppression only comes when we give these
things up. DQ is present to the extent that we can transcend all that static quality. You know,
be a dead man." David Lind suggests that "by holding too tightly to static patterns ... we cut
off the dynamic".
David T is seeking "to develop a complete "value" based moral philosophy" which he does
not find in Pirsig. I think he is correct in his assertion, but I wonder if such a moral philosophy
would really meet his needs. I doubt that it would suffice for me. Like David L, I am interested
in detaching from the static patterns that bind us, and becoming more open to the dynamic
which surrounds us. But like David T I am sceptical of the usual paths on offer. The issue
becomes how to use static filters (which Pirsig asserts are necessary and useful) without
becoming bound by them. How to flow from the static to the dynamic and back to the static
"as the situation dictates" (a bit of Gestalt jargon).
It seems to me that Robert Stillwell hit the nail on the head in a post some months ago, from
which I copied these words.
"I have seen so often in my life (after reading Krishnamurti) badness coming from people
afraid of paying attention to the whole of their experiences. When one chooses to become
insensitive to certian aspects of reality - fear replaces love."
I really appreciate this formulation of the task we face. And attending is something we are all
capable of, with or without enlightenment.
John B
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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:13 BST