From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 20:58:24 BST
Scott wrote:
_______________________
It actually is an interesting issue. Pirsig consistently capitalizes Dynamic
but not static, and so MOQ loyalists follow suit in this forum, referring to
DQ/sq. But as Erin pointed out a while back, this is prima facie evidence
that the dynamic is being privileged over the static, that the dynamic is
first-class, and the static is second-class, which provides ammunition for
Matt to say that the MOQ makes an appearance/reality distinction, and for me
that the MOQ has fallen off the Buddhist Middle Way that it claims to be on.
_______________________
Yes Scott, this points at my concern very well. It seems we are fascinated
by the Dynamic to such an extent; maybe because its exciting and 'mysterious
'. To the intellectual its high end, coming after metaphysics, and always a
challenge to wrestle with because of its ineffability. In short, its fun,
and I am suspicious of ego attachment. I am reminded of the shallowness of
most of the New Age stuff as well as the 'rebellion without a cause' in the
60s in the US against the established social and intellectual patterns of
value. Also, if we place such importance on the Dynamic such to make it the
moral high ground, we can disregard any criticism from traditional SOM
values such as responsibility since there are no intellectual grounds to
mount such criticism. It does let one off the hook.
I do not believe Zen intends (or Pirsig) or any other Wisdom Tradition
intends such unaccountability, that 'anything goes'.
Consider the much-overused Yin-Yang. Not only is a dot of Yin in the very
heart of Yang and vice versa (interdependence of opposites), but the area of
each exactly equals the other (balance). Of all the places to adhere to
both / and logic rather than either / or logic the balance between static
and Dynamic is the place. IMO the two are on equal footing and entirely
interdependent. Quality to me is the optimal balance between the two, which
itself is a dynamic depending on the moment.
If we let static = 'mundane' and dynamic = 'esoteric' (immanent, not
transcendental) for just a moment consider how much of our day-to-day
activity is concerned with 'mundane' affairs. Almost entirely, if one of us
posting here is not doing so from a Buddhist retreat. Static patterns of
quality is what my reason uses to suggest that I not step in front of the
moving car, and I suggest that if we truly ignore static patterns we will
not be around long.
In risk analysis there are two considerations: severity and frequency. It
may be that the Dynamic is very important for creativity, intuition, and
even spiritual growth. But frequent 'peak experiences' (to borrow a
Maslowian term) may not be required for a well-lived life. Pirsig got a lot
of mileage out of his close brush with insanity. Most of the work (time and
effort) following was developing static intellectual patterns of value.
Same with the Buddha. The one critical experience fueled quite a creative
life after.
As for frequency, mundane experience wins hands down, and to do well in all
aspects of life requires attention to mundane affairs. So, it is the
balance that is important to me. That is what I came here to learn about.
Live well,
Steve
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 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 22:50:08 BST