From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 12:46:52 BST
David H,
>Previously Paul wrote:
>> I think the apprehension of undivided DQ, the emptying out of static
>> patterned divisions, is only privileged to the extent that it allows new
>and
>> better static patterns to emerge.
David said:
>If you say "Dynamic Quality is *only* good to the *extent* it improves
>things" I don't think this is right.
Paul: Me neither. I said it is only *privileged* above static patterns to
the extent that it is the source of improvement. Dynamic Quality *is*
'good' i.e. it *is* value.
If Dynamic Quality was just a blissful state of nothingness which didn't
improve static patterns then a hit of smack could be considered pure Dynamic
Quality.
I think that such a statement leads
>to mistaking the patterns for the DQ they're their to
>preserve. If you emphasize Dynamic Quality just because of its improvement
>to the patterns, then how can you ever know when to stop changing the
>patterns and take stock if your always looking at the
>patterns and not the wider picture. In Zen this is negatively called "bad
>karma chasing it's tail" and is thus not DQ.
Paul: I think "bad karma chasing its tail" would be the attempt to solve
one static set of existing problems with another set of existing static
problems. I am saying that Dynamic Quality 'empties out' the static clutter
which tends to dissolve problems rather than solve them, if this distinction
is not too slippery for you.
>Paul continued:
>> I don't think Pirsig thinks it is the
>> ultimate goal or the terminus of Zen discipline or art or any other
>> activity.
>
>I think that it is the ultimate goal. In fact the next sentence from you
>was Pirsig's quote which says it is the ultimate goal from a static point
>of view.
Paul: Yes, from a static point of view Dynamic Quality is always the goal
but it cannot be the 'ultimate' goal in any sense because it cannot be
'attained'. To attain something is to render it into a static pattern. I
think Chi-tsang's 'three levels of two truths' can be of use here. In this
device, the 'Dynamic truth' at one 'level' becomes the 'static truth' at the
next. This is in accordance with the 'non-attachment' of the Buddhas and
with this statement from Pirsig.
"Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be
described as a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the
definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic
Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely
definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." [LILA'S
CHILD, Notes on Annotation 57]
>But, as you seem to hint at, it doesn't end there, because as he says 'once
>enlightened, Dynamic Quality is supplanted by moral perfection'
>(Copleston).
>
>Also I think Pirsig does think it's the 'terminus of art'.
Paul: I would think it is more the 'goal' of art or even the 'source' of
it. But once the static patterns of the work have emerged, the Dynamic
Quality is no longer 'there'.
I'm not sure how much we disagree.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 13:16:13 BST