On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>>> Indeed. Depending on what's good at the time we can say which is primary and thus what experience actually is. Ultimately, experience is Dynamic Quality - However, sometimes it's good to say we experience static quality - like when we want to discuss Metaphysics.
>> It might be better if we said intellectual quality patterns are a
>> collection of symbols that represent experience. We manipulate them
>> via our brains. Thinking and rationality are representations of
>> experience, not experience itself.
>> "Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path
>> because when you try to use thought to approach something that is
>> prior to thought your thinking does not carry you toward that
>> something. It carries you away from it. To define something is to
>> subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual relationships. And when you
>> do that you destroy real understanding." [Lila]
> You're right. It is good to say that. Static quality represents what we actually experience. And there is a degeneracy in claiming otherwise. I am being degenerate by claiming otherwise. This is the degeneracy of the intellect. Where I say we 'experience' static quality this is what I mean. I mean that I am going to treat static patterns as if they do exist and are what we experience. Of course, we don't experience them. But there is value in saying that we do. This is what I mean when I say it is a matter of emphasis. Both views are right. You say 'it might be better' but there are no ifs or buts about it. Ultimately, your argument that experience is Dynamic Quality is more right than mine. But I still think that saying we experience static quality is not wrong any more than it is wrong to attend a philosophical discussion group or to get out of bed in the morning or to exist generally..
Sure. We can also say that the city of San Fransisco experienced an
earthquake and everyone knows what we mean. And I have no real problem
saying we experience static patterns of quality either. It isn't wrong
to say so. Sometimes though it is better to be precise, especially in
this discussion group.
>>> Yeah. But why do people tend to close their mind to the infinite possibilities that abound in each moment as they get older? There must be something which causes this no?
>> The MOQ says that A doesn't cause B... B values precondition A. So
>> looking at your question this way, we might say that culture doesn't
>> cause people to close their minds... rather people tend to value the
>> preconditions set up by what they know (social and intellectual static
>> "The only difference between causation and value is that the word
>> "cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of
>> "value" is one of preference." [Lila]
>> If a person prefers the familiar to the new then they are more likely
>> to ignore Dynamic Quality in favor of static quality. It is all a
>> matter of preference, really.
> Yes, it is. Well put. And that's why I say it is a matter of emphasis depending on the situation as to what we treat as primary - static quality or Dynamic Quality. Certainly, Dynamic Quality is fundamental. And certainly, static quality is an attempted 'representation' of Dynamic Quality. But by being a 'representation' and manipulating it as such, we are treating it as if it exists..
Knowing it is a representation and treating it as it really exists is
different from actually believing the representation exists. No one
has ever seen the light of the world. We understand that light as a
representation formed in our brains.
What are researchers measuring when they measure the speed of light?
Are they measuring the speed of a real beam of light? Or are they
measuring our representation of a beam of light?
>> David H:
>> I the cause is the growing of static quality over time which
>> strangles the Dynamic Quality that is there all along.. I still think
>> the MOQ explains this in a beautiful metaphysical way like I have
>> never seen before. The way to 'kill' those static patterns which
>> strangle the static quality over time is to master them, and they're
>> I would say that by opening ourselves up to experience, or Dynamic
>> Quality, we come to see that the symbols we take for experience are
>> just that.
> I agree. At any moment, at any time, one can open up to experience and see that the symbols we use for experience are just that. But once we have woken up, what then?
We do what needs to be done. :)
>>>> We are all caught up in this language that we use to define each other
>>>> as well as define our own self. It is full of contradictions... there
>>>> is no single truth and yet we can be wrong about everything.
>>> Yeah. What the MOQ does I think, is provide us with a perspective on right and wrong. In SOM what's right and wrong is what's true and what isn't. But in the MOQ, what's right and wrong is what's good and what isn't. Today's right will hopefully, one day, if things continue to get better, be wrong for tomorrow.
>> If something isn't good is it bad? Instead of right and wrong, why not
>> say the MOQ is based on value. We sense higher value and move towards
> Yes, I was responding to you where you mentioned how we can be wrong about everything. The meaning of 'wrongness', as it pertains directly to value, is given far greater context within the MOQ. I mean, I think there is still value in the word wrong in the MOQ. Wrongness is low quality in the face of higher quality. In fact according to the MOQ, there are things which are so wrong they are evil.
>>> Yep. So we are in agreement then, there is enlightenment and it is achieved through mastery of some such a static quality?
>> Again, I think it is more a matter of perspective. If you wish for
>> there to be enlightenment, then there is enlightenment. Whatever you
>> think 'it' is, or want 'it' to be, it is. I would say from my
>> experience there is no such thing as enlightenment or the mastery of
>> static quality patterns. We sense value. One can always improve...
>> become better. If there is no chance to be better then it seems like
>> stagnation has set in. No?
> No. That there is no chance to be better does not immediately imply that stagnation has set in...
If something cannot be better it implies (to me) that it is exclusively static.
> To start with, what is this drive to be better, to become better? Where does it come from? People naturally, without even intentionally saying they do, experience quality, know what it is, and become better people. Why is that?
I tend to disagree. Some people may better themselves at the expense
of others. Does that make them better people? Some people may better
themselves by ignoring their family and devoting all their time to
their career. Does that make them better people? Some people may
better themselves by sticking their noses in other people's affairs
and meddling where they are not wanted. Does that make them better
I don't mean to say people are naturally nasty and brutish, however.
Most of us like to think of ourselves as enlightening beings who
wouldn't hesitate to help others who are down on their luck.
Don't know if you read my tweet about the study done in New York
It's interesting that nearly everyone asked said they did. The author
surmises: panhandlers would all have houses in the suburbs and buskers
would all be millionaires if everyone here were telling the truth.
I think it is because people, like all things, are static quality. It
is only static quality which can get better. Any and all static
quality can always be better.
I unsure if I agree.
"Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they
demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change." [Lila]
If we feel we've mastered something, that it is perfect, then we
inadvertently suppress any Dynamic response to change... to become
better. How can one improve on perfection? If something is perfect,
doesn't it demand blind obedience?
You can always think of a way some such a static quality can be
better. But alternatively, can Dynamic Quality get any better? That's
like a Zen Koan, but being that it isn't any thing,
Dynamic Quality isn't any 'thing' but it does exist.
it can't get any better because it is undefined betterness itself. If
that's the case - is Dynamic Quality then stagnation? Of course it
isn't. This is my point.
It is better to say Dynamic Quality is not this, not that. Our
response to Dynamic Quality may stagnate, sure. Not Dynamic Quality,
My point is that the way we get better is through mastery of some such
a static quality. Once this static quality is mastered, there is
nothing left but an unfolding of doing. Of course, over time, some
such a static quality will reveal its head once again and this static
quality will be there to be mastered, and so this process goes on and
Perhaps we are saying the same thing only in different ways.
>>> Okay, well I hope you don't. I think that Lila is just about the best book ever written and that MD holds the culture of the MOQ together. It would be a tragedy to see this place go backwards. Like everything, this culture needs hard work and sacrifice for it to get better.
>> As long as there are people here who are serious... people who are
>> genuinely engaging themselves in bettering their understanding of the
>> foundations of the MOQ and not making a mockery of it by babbling
>> nonsense and wasting everyone's time including my own, then I suspect
>> I will continue to find value here. I guess that's why I posted the
>> excerpt about jazz in the first place... as a kind of analogy we can
>> use regarding the MOQ. We need touchstones.
> Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head earlier where you mentioned the danger of falling into the depths of ones own grandiose ideas. Metaphysics, because of the depths to which it does indeed deal with, runs this risk probably more than anything else. But I think the best way to avoid this trap is to remember that this is an intellectual pursuit, not a social one. Indeed, humility in the face of better ideas goes a long way..
Yes, agree with that. And we're all probably guilty of being
dismissive of others at one time or another. Lord knows I am. Still,
if we can form certain commonalities regarding the MOQ, then it is
easier to advance our intellectual understandings. If we go off on
wild tangents like some contributors have a tendency to do, claiming
we know better than to read the books and listen to the author and
those who have studied the MOQ extensively, then confusion and
>> I sense we are pretty much in agreement. We all have differing life
>> experiences and I am loath to overlay mine on others. I think it is
>> said that here are two ways enlightenment might come about... in a
>> flash or with much practice and hard work. Either way though I suspect
>> we may see there is no enlightenment at all... that what we sought is
>> here all along.
>> Still, neither would I attempt to dissuade anyone from such a search
>> for enlightenment... to see for themselves.
> We can wake up to DQ at any time, however it will always involve static quality disappearing. Such an 'event' occurring can be carefully contrived though the art of doing something like Zazen where it is as simple as sitting on a cushion and thus easy to master. Or, enlightenment can happen completely co-incidentally by being whacked in the head with a bat or drugged with something..
> So if drugs or head whacking are off the table, there is great beauty in how the MOQ can metaphysically show how one can free themselves from any static quality. That is, through the mastery of this static quality until it no longer exists and is gone... This is not stagnation, but a wondrous unfolding of doing.
I would say static quality is never gone. If we seek after
enlightenment we will only draw farther away from the path even as we
walk upon it. When we see 'it' for what it is we no longer waste our
> ..Thank you Dan, yet another enjoyable email which pushed me to my limits..