[MD] The first division of the MOQ. - dynamic or Dynamic Quality?

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

>> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, I agree, first we must see static for what it is, and I think
> Pirsig presents this very well.  This is one reason why he brings up
> the concept of subject object metaphysics.  If we look only at these
> things, then we miss most of what is going on.  Such stuck-ness in
> objects is a sad oversimplification of life, which it would appear
> many are prolonging.
> 
> Mindfulness is a technique, as you say.  Once practiced and practiced,
> the techniques disappears and is replaced with a second nature.

You got it.

> Mindfulness (in my understanding) takes the focus out of the object,
> and puts in on the action.  When one acts on an object, this action is
> actually happening from both sides, since the object is also acting on
> you.  Therefore, in this action, there is a midpoint (if you will)
> where the action does not belong to either you or the object; it is
> neutral.  At this point, there is no subject and no object.  Living in
> that neutral zone, can been called living in the moment.  However,
> even the term "living in the moment" is misleading, since "the moment"
> cannot be defined.  This whole NOW concept has been adulterated to the
> point of being just a "feel good" thing.  Living in the moment has got
> nothing to do with time.

I agree.

> 
> I would not call myself a mystic by any means.  I do not find myself
> in Rapture.  My personally meaningful insights are arrived at through
> logical thinking.  There are jumps that I cannot explain in such
> logic, and then I have to backtrack to explain the missing logic (to
> myself).  The brain works in mysterious ways that we have not even
> begun to unravel in a way for us to agree on.  The next hundred years
> should be very exciting.

I work the same way. Often it's through thinking something over and over and over again that I find myself coming to these sorts of 'aha' moments. That is, through the perfection of static quality. 


>  Perhaps this whole notion of the Mystic is
> somewhat misleading, and way too Grand.  I could say that I have had
> experiences (sometimes with a little help from a chemical or two in
> the distant past), which happen suddenly and seem strange.  Even in
> those experiences everything seems to make sense.  There is just an
> extreme feeling of relief.  This intense feeling of relief is the
> closest I can come to describing such experiences.  There seems to be
> a degree of clarity which has no intellectual component.  Perhaps it
> is the right side of the brain taking over, who knows.  Another way I
> have tried to describe it is the feeling I get when I suddenly enter a
> vast cave that is filled with beautiful stalagmites and stalactites.
> I can say I have had such feelings when I enter an enormous ornate
> cathedral, perhaps that is why they build such religious structures
> that way.  Of course after entering the cave such feelings disappear
> as soon as I become analytical.  Anyway, this type of sharing is
> nonsense and probably out of place.

This is Dynamic Quality where words cannot describe it. But we're alive so let's give it the best shot we can. 

>> 
>> [David]
>> I won't.  The MOQ is good at reminding us what Dynamic Quality isn't.  It's also good at pointing the way towards it - through the perfection of static quality.  The MOQ encapsulates both the Mystic view and the Logical Positivist view into one Metaphysical system.
>> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, I would agree.
>> 

Glad we're in agreement.

Thank you for the discussion Mark.

-David.