From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 22:50:15 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 6 Apr 2004 16:07:14 -0400:
'I said that one way I did [pursue Dynamic Quality] was by gathering in
groups at concerts, in museums and in the great outdoors, comparing how I
pursue DQ to you Quakers gathering in meeting houses. I know it's really DQ
when I experience it shining all around me as my static patterns disappear.
Isn't that the way you know DQ, or does it speak to you in Dutch?'
Yes, you did (29 Mar 2004 08:29:39 -0500), but neither in your original
presentation of your religion (13 Mar 2004 08:59:41 -0500), nor in your
reply (30 Mar 2004 09:04:19 -0500) to my questions of 29 Mar 2004 23:27:30
+0200:
'- You describe yourself as an atheist and defined an atheist as "someone
[who] doesn't believe in God". What God do you deny? Given your appreciation
of DQ, you probably deny the same (interpretation of) God as I do. Would you
also describe yourself as an atheist when faced with a religion that
interprets God as DQ?
- What are the practical results of your "pursuing Dynamic Quality by
creating and contemplating art as well as by pursuing beauty in all [your]
endeavors"? What are the static patterns of value left in its wake in your
life and/or that of others? Does this Dynamic Quality operate on the social
and intellectual patterns of value you participate in? Does it induce them
to "migrate towards DQ"?'
Sorry to have overlooked that you DID say a bit more about HOW you pursue
Dynamic Quality, but it did not answer my questions what are the practical
results and what static patterns of value are left in the wake of the
Dynamic Quality you experience.
Do you agree that DQ should leave new static patterns of value in its wake
to really be DQ? The disappearing of old static patterns of value is not
enough. That is also a symptom of degeneracy. DQ, like mystical experience,
is beyond language, so doesn't speak in Dutch to me.
You continued 6 Apr 2004 16:07:14 -0400:
'I recognize DQ [as?] has Pirsig described it. I haven't freed any static
patterns or created any new ones that I know about. Have you?'
No collection of static patterns of value (even if it is receptive of DQ)
can take credit for the action of DQ. The question should be: have you
started participating in new patterns of value because of your DQ
experience?
Those new patterns of value come into being because of people participate in
them, of course, but the typical pattern of value requires more than one
person participating before it can be recognized as a 'pattern' (even if
retrospectively one can be credited as originator). Being 'original' happens
to everyone all the time: it just means deviating from an old pattern of
value. Patterns can stand lots of unconnected deviations before they become
unrecognizable and disappear. It is only when those deviations connect into
a new pattern that DQ becomes recognizable. Who was the originator may be
less important than who joined in to participate.
What kind of art do you create? Where did you learn the techniques and what
models did you emulate when learning them? Did deviations from the models
sometimes 'connect' (either with own earlier deviations or with deviations
by others) and form a new pattern, a new latch for the DQ you experienced?
You continued:
'Me? Create a religion? You give me more credit than I deserve. Even my
large ego will not admit that I'm the second coming of Christ. Anyway, as a
pointed out before, I'm not a fan of organized religions.'
Everyone can create a religion, even if only a 'religion of one' like Lila,
if you lack leading and organizing talents. You have in fact already created
one by presenting 13 Mar 2004 08:59:41 -0500 your religion, without
referring to any organization.
Psychiatric institutions already contain quite a few "Christs reborn". (And
pretending to be one caused the founder of the Shakers to be expelled by
Manchester Quakers as I recounted 16 Mar 2004 15:24:29 +0100.) So that
doesn't qualify as a 'new religion'.
But don't be afraid, you don't need to create a religion yourself that
interprets God as DQ. It already exists and its way of organizing is very
limited compared to other religions. None of the objections against
organized religion I read from you until now is valid for Quakers.
Yes, I did have a "hidden agenda" when showing interest in your religion of
"pursuing Dynamic Quality by creating and contemplating art as well as by
pursuing beauty in all [your] endeavors". I brought it out in the open to
make clear that this whole "Idols" game of a competition between religions
(in which the explicit agenda is to beat the religions others think best) is
only a game. That my real purpose is to explore together ways of pursuing
DQ, that I recognize endeavours by others as equally valid ways of doing so
and am open to the possibility that they may be of value for me, too. This
agenda need not have been really "hidden", certainly not for you. Let me
remind you of what you wrote 6 Dec 2002 11:05:32 -0500:
'More importantly, you wrote something in a post to Sam of 4 Dec. that
struck me as a basic premise in your approach to the MoQ:
"For me it is the 'contradictory identity' of humans with humanity and
with creation as a whole, the experience of the divine as 'something' that
connects everyone and everything 'shining through' the experience of
diversity and conflict."
This idea of "Divine One through Many" reminded me of one of my
favorite passages by Aziz Nasafi:
"On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to the spiritual
world, the body to the bodily world. In this, however, only the body is
subject to change. The spiritual world is one single spirit who stands
like unto light behind the bodily world and who, when any single
creature comes into being, shines through it as through a window.
According to the kind and size of the window, less or more light enters
the world. The light itself remains unchanged."
If I'm right that our underlying beliefs match in a fundamental way, our
differences in our approach and understanding of the MoQ are mere
ripples in an ocean.'
Yes, I did have 'a hidden agenda all along': please show me the light that
shines through you. Don't suppose that your ego should be large to show it
forth. You rather need a small ego, that doesn't stand in the way of the
light.
You suggested:
'All I can suggest is you visit Amsterdam where I believe there are a number
of paintings by Rembrandt. See if he can't help you make the connection you
seek.'
The European Cultural Foundation is in Amsterdam. On my way to work I pass
underneath the 'Rijksmuseum' (with the 'Nachtwacht', the most famous
painting by Rembrandt) on my bike and cross the 'Museumplein', with the 'van
Gogh Museum' and the 'Stedelijk Museum'. I have seen all of them from the
inside at least once in my life. I'm afraid I only experience static
patterns of value. High-quality ones, for sure, but no DQ. Can anything
stored in a museum because it is valued by lots of people show more than
static patterns of value that have been left in the wake of DQ long ago? In
a sense the traditions and rituals you criticize in organized religions the
"museums" of the static patterns of value left in the wake of mystical
religious experience. Can you understand that I do not expect to experience
DQ in art museums anymore either? Wouldn't your suggestion to 'arrange tours
and provide the means for the people to attend concerts and see the great
churches and museums that exist throughout Europe' imply 'exposure to sq'
rather than 'exposure to DQ'?
You reacted to my description of Denis de Rougemont's vision after the 2nd
World War of a Europe that would not only be an economic and a political
entity, but also a cultural entity with:
'I thought the big thing these days among the elite was diversity, not
unity.'
And you reacted to my description of the mission of the ECF ("The ECF was
founded in 1954 to help create a European identity by promoting cultural
cooperation and an open and unified Europe, where cultural diversity can
flourish and enrich everyone.) with:
'Which is it, unity or diversity? How can it be both at once?'
This no more paradoxical DQ and sq, progressive change and conserving what's
valuable, both being Quality. Identities (both individual and collective)
are layered, once consciousness is far enough developed. I can be both a
Quaker and a Haarlemmer and a Dutchman and ... a European, to name only a
few elements of my complex identity.
'Unity in diversity' is very much 'in' these days, especially among the
European elite with a far enough developed consciousness.
You reacted to my '[The ECF] seeks to foster a sense of belonging for
everyone emphasizing the importance of cultural concerns for maintaining
human rights and democracy' with:
'I hope the arts aren't being used as political propaganda.'
I happen to support a political agenda with as basic values human rights
(clearly defined ones, not an 'amorphous soup of sentiments') and democracy
(or rather partcipation by everyone who wants in shaping the future of one's
society as a whole). But I agree that 'culture' should not be made into a
means to reach political and/or economic ends. The meaning of Denis de
Rougemont's vision for me is exactly that 'culture' should be recognized as
valuable independently from its instrumental value for politics and
economics.
The ECF does 'beg' for money from governments with this instrumental value
of culture for politics as argument. Usually with little success. Nearly all
of the money the ECF 'throws at arts' is not tax money however. It is money
that ordinary people have thrown away lured by lotteries promising easy gain
and 'if you lose, don't mind, as 60% of it is going to good causes anyway'.
I try to convince the ECF to become less dependent on lottery money, without
becoming dependent on government money, by developing funding from direct
donations/membership fees.
By the way, why do you consider it wrong to throw tax money at arts (more
wrong than throwing privately 'earned' money)? All those 'great art centers
of Europe' owe their existence to tax money. Two of the three museums I ment
ioned are named after governments: municipal ('stedelijk') and state
('rijks-').
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 23:30:35 BST