From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 02:11:24 BST
Hi Paul,
> David H,
>
>
>>>Paul: I am saying that, in the MOQ, the experience of Dynamic Quality is
>>>privileged over static patterned experience because it is the source of
>>>static improvement i.e., the ongoing expansive force of evolution. If it
>>>were privileged just because it was 'unpatterned nothingness' then I
>>
>>would
>>
>>>think that would be akin to Dynamic Quality being no more than a chosen
>>>object of religious worship.
>>
>>I disagree, I think it is 'no more than a chosen object of religious
>>worship' when it is encaptulated within a concept such as 'I follow DQ only
>>because it improves me' thus becomming a pattern and
>>not DQ.
>
>
> Paul: I didn't say anything like 'I follow DQ only because it improves me'.
> I was considering the MOQ moral hierarchy with respect to Dynamic Quality
> being at the top but, anyway, let's take this conversation all the way to
> its end. "DQ" is a static conceptual pattern, "undefined Quality" is a
> conceptual pattern, "nothingness" is a pattern, "Buddha" is a pattern etc.
> Throw away LILA and ZMM and shut down this forum.
>
and I don't disagree that Dynamic Quality is defined in the MOQ and throughout LILA but it's not defined under the name of Dynamic Quality it's defined under the name of static quality. You'll notice
that Pirsig never actually says in Lila what 'it' actually 'is', he just alludes to its existence or non-existence whatever the case may be ;).
An example of this..
Lila pg 454:
"From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality can seem like a death experience. It's a movement from something into nothing. How can nothing be any different from death?
Since a dynamic understanding doesn't make the divisions necessary to answer that question, the question goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say was, "See for yourself".
Also I think that this primary division as I've said is very important. Pirsig recognises this in Lila, start of Chapter 9...
"In any hierarchy of metaphysical classification the most important division is the first one, for this division dominates everything beneath it. If this first division is bad there is no way you can
ever build a really good system of classification around it."
and then 16 pages later at the end of Chapter 9, he claims to already want to leave Dynamic Quality alone..
"He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is."
Dynamic Quality is not a pattern, so the very next page..
"Phaedrus's central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned toward the static patterns themselves".
>
>>>If describing Dynamic Quality as the expansive
>>>force of evolution "wraps it up" then so be it. If this is the case,
>>
>>Pirsig
>>
>>>spends most of LILA "wrapping up" Dynamic Quality.
>>
>>I agree, I too think that Pirsig 'wraps up' "undefined Quality" but as soon
>>as he does he distances himself from the concept immediately by creating
>>the very first two divisions, 'defined' (Static)
>>Quality and 'undefined' (Dynamic) Quality.
>
>
> Paul: That division is a pattern too. And as I said, throw away LILA
> because the role of Dynamic Quality in the MOQ is described throughout.
>
And, recognised as static quality not Dynamic Quality. To put it another way if you answer the Zen koan, "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?", and say yes, yes a dog has a Buddha nature!
Then what about cats, birds and just about everything else? As soon as you answer, you loose your own quality. Joshu, he replies "Mu".
Here's a quote from Pirsig who realised he made basically the same mistake in Lilas Child..
"Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative
was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial
definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality
someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it
and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question,
"What is Dynamic Quality?" is the ancient Vedic one -- "Not this, not that."
>
>>>>Yes a hit of smack can be considered pure DQ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but I am trying to distinguish the unpatterned degenerate and/or
>>>chaotic from the unpatterned evolutionary experience by saying that
>>
>>Dynamic
>>
>>>Quality precedes, and is the only cause of, static improvement and is not
>>>simply a blissful state of pleasurable nothingness.
>>
>>Since when according to the MOQ was a 'blissful state of pleasurable
>>nothingness' a bad thing?
>
>
> Paul: When it is a biological pattern which is destructive to social
> patterns, like heroin can be.
If it's recognised as 'heroin' then by it's own definition is not a 'blissful state of pleasurable nothingness', heroin is 'somethingness'.
>
>>>I would generalise that
>>>the experience of heroin tends to be highly biologically addictive,
>>>destructive of social patterns, and therefore degenerate.
>>> However, you are,
>>>of course, at liberty to demonstrate that heroin use constitutes a
>>
>>Dynamic
>>
>>>advance.
>>>
>>
>>To me, that heroin taking is degenerate on the larger scale is another
>>issue entirely, but at the most immediate level, Dynamic Quality is
>>everywhere/nowhere, while doing anything/nothing.
>
>
> Paul: Another patterned conceptualisation of Dynamic Quality which would
> have been better off not written.
Your being facetious, clearly you can see 'it', my statement said nothing..
>
>>> I think
>>>enlightenment is the awareness of the 'impermanence' or 'emptiness' of
>>>static patterns, including one's own, and this can occur anywhere and can
>>
>>be
>>
>>>brought about in many different ways and at many different 'depths'.
>>
>>With
>>
>>>respect to my own limited 'acquisition' of this awareness, for example, I
>>>feel my experience was 'shallow', but at the time, enough, and it was
>>>certainly unexpected, occurring neither in a Zendo nor anywhere near a
>>>motorcycle. For the record, I don't claim to be an 'awakened one' and my
>>>own development of this awareness would consist in the cultivation of the
>>>ability to perceive Dynamic Quality or static quality at will.
>>>
>>>With respect to my relating Dynamic Quality to the improvement of static
>>>patterns being a supposed infringement on the undivided nothingness of
>>>enlightenment, I think this 'nothingness'** is only the goal of e.g. Zen
>>>Buddhism insofar as it provides an experiential awareness of the lack of
>>>inherent self-existence of all 'things'. I think Zen aims to push past
>>
>>the
>>
>>>'lip service' which many people pay to this awareness and go deep enough
>>
>>to
>>
>>>put it 'beyond doubt'. However, I don't think this represents an
>>
>>'arrival'
>>
>>>at some place in which static quality has been permanently left behind.
>>
>>I agree.
>
>
> Paul: Great.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> A Monk asked Yun Men, "What are the teachings of a whole lifetime?"
> Yun Men said, "An appropriate statement."
>
Regards
David.
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 : Thu Aug 18 2005 - 02:39:50 BST