[MD] Does every thing have a why?
daneglover at gmail.com
Sun Dec 23 17:18:42 PST 2012
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> Is experience Dynamic Quality? Is that all experience is? I don't think that it is. I think that experience includes static quality as well. Try as we might but we cannot avoid static quality. To say that experience is only Dynamic Quality would be something a mystic would say.
> To a mystic, the only important thing is Dynamic Quality… The patterns are illusory and a distraction from DQ which is 'true experience'. To a Zen Buddhist the patterns are Dukha - a distraction, cause suffering and not actually real. They are an attempt at capturing that which cannot be caught. To a Zen Buddhist - by doing this capturing of things into static quality we are only going against the fundamental nature of all things which is Dynamic Quality.
> While MOQ agrees that trying to capture DQ with sq is indeed impossible - it is a fact of life and unavoidable. Therefore, in the MOQ experience is both Dynamic Quality *and* static quality. These patterns which we experience as a result of Dynamic Quality are not merely a distraction but are unavoidable, real, and with rta - can actually result in better static quality.
According to the MOQ we don't actually experience static quality. I
think this excerpt might help illuminate my point here. See what you
"In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a
preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no
pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become
synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this
Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this
change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not
change. Scientific “matter” is derived from the concept of substance.
Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and
nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes
later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism,
which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so
pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ time is
dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction
from experience.” [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child]
Note he says experience comes first and every THING else comes later.
There are no pre-existing patterns of value, or subjects and objects
for that matter. So to say we experience both Dynamic Quality and
static quality is to form a fundamental misunderstanding with the MOQ.
Static quality comes after experience.
>>> Both Zazen *and* Motorcycle Maintenance have goals, both of which are achieved not by focusing un-necessarily on the goal but by being present in the moment and doing them. This to me is the whole point of ZMM.
>> Well, if you read the introduction to ZMM, you'll see it really isn't
>> about motorcycle maintenance, nor does it have much to say about zen.
>> I always thought one of the points to ZMM was caring or the lack of
>> it. I would hesitate to hang just one point on the book.
> Yes I would too.. I should be clearer - This to me is a *major* point of ZMM that (paraphrase) - 'The Buddha, the Godhead, resides just as happily in the circuits of a computer as it does the petals on a flower in the mountain top'..
Yes, I agree. Robert Pirsig makes a point of contrasting the
technophobic tendencies of John and Cynthia with the willingness of
the narrator to do his own motorcycle maintenance. Isn't all this
really a matter of personal preference, however?
>>> 'Just fixing' is the same as 'Just sitting'. The goal for both things, indeed everything, if we are to prescribe one, is to move *away* from all mechanistic static patterns. A broken bike is a low quality very static situation… you aren't going anywhere… Likewise someone who is beginning Zazen practice, if they are anything like me, will likely begin by being very static and constantly thinking! Tick tick tick the mind goes… But naturally the mind will wind down..
>> Left to its own devices the mind will quite naturally run amok. If
>> this were not so, what would be the point of practicing zazen or
> Yes, that is why I say that this is what occurs naturally *when* someone is practicing Zazen.
> So do you not agree that a major point of the book is that there is Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I describe above why I think they are similar.
It depends upon who is doing the motorcycle maintenance, doesn't it? I
think one of the points of ZMM was the contrast between those who make
an art out of doing motorcycle maintenance and those who do not. Note
that John Sutherland was an artist, a musician, and a very good one at
that. And yet he had no inclination to do his own motorcycle
maintenance. Was there zen in the artistry of his music? Who can say?
He must have found his moment, I should think. Is there zen in the art
of motorcycle maintenance? Who can say? Perhaps that's why the book is
called Zen AND the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
>>> Of course, this is where I see the quote you provide below being significant...
>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the question been taken up of whether life is heading away from mechanistic patterns?"
>>> The MOQ is an answer to that question. All *things* are moving towards DQ. Zen recognises this and shows us how to directly experience DQ. However the MOQ differs with Zen which says that these patterns of experience are an illusion…
>>> "The word “I” like the word “self” is one of the trickiest words in any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism,” that call the “I” or “individual” the central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality." - LC
>>> So in other words in the MOQ (unlike Zen where the patterns are illusory) the patterns quality is valued.
>> Well, it may be a matter of semantics but Buddhism doesn't say the
>> patterns are an illusion... the self is seen as an illusion. So far as
>> I know Buddhism has nothing to say about patterns of quality.
>> The MOQ, on the other hand, has lots to say about patterns of quality.
>> I haven't seen where it says patterns are an illusion, nor have I seen
>> where it says they are not an illusion. I think that might be the
>> wrong way to approach the MOQ. For instance, a thought can be an
>> illusion but it is still a pattern of value.
> You agree that Buddhism says that the self is an illusion.. So we're clear here this is the definition of an illusion..
> something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
> the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
> an instance of being deceived.
> The MOQ categorises the self as a "collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality." If Buddhism claims that the self (static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality) is illusory then unless you say that static patterns can exist without the humans who created them(they can't) then Buddhism claims that static patterns are illusory.
I suspect the Buddhist conception of self is different than the MOQ.
Don't you think so too?
> This is projection but what good is a Metaphysics if you can't project it onto things and interpret what others are saying in a coherent, better way? That's the whole point of a Metaphysics; to categorise things fundamentally and put them in perspective in order to live a good life.
If it works, sure.
>>>>>>> I think that we don't need an end point before we ask why. As the title of this post suggests, I think that every thing has a why including Zazen. The reason is that we can always ask - Why does x exist? That's about as fundamental a question as you can ask. But that's not how all why's come to us. One of the first things we empirically experience is a certain level of quality. If the level of quality is low, such as with a broken motorcycle, we will ask, 'why is the motorcycle broken?'. In other words - we don't need an end point to ask this question! The point is that we are moving *Away* from the low static quality situation and towards some undefined betterness. It is this movement away from static quality and towards DQ that can be found as the goal of all things.
>>>>>> I can see that, sure. I would say though that the stilling of the
>>>>>> internal discursive voice continually running through one's head has
>>>>>> no why, no end point. The whys exist within that internal discursive
>>>>>> voice as it stutters the world into existence. When that voice stops,
>>>>>> the whys of world stop.
>>>>> Sure, and so what we can do with that inner voice thanks to the MOQ is designate the stopping of the mind an intellectual symbol - "Dynamic Quality" - and use those words to intellectually represent the stopping of the mind. Without the words 'Dynamic Quality' the MOQ would be much poorer as a result. That's why I disagree and say that the voice does have an end point during meditation; an end point which is called Dynamic Quality.
>>>> I suppose one could call it anything they like but they would still be
>>>> incorrect in naming it. I know Dynamic Quality is used in Lila as a
>>>> reference to neither this nor that. To introduce any symbol is a
>>>> mistake, in my opinion. Dynamic Quality is an intellectual construct,
>>>> not an end point to meditation.
>>> Dynamic Quality is an intellectual construct the same as trees are an intellectual construct the same as human beings are an intellectual construct the same as books are an intellectual construct… All things are intellectual constructs - including Dynamic Quality.
>>> Therefore the end point to meditation is Dynamic Quality. This statement is mystically degenerate but intellectually valuable. If you don't want to talk about the static quality intellectual constructs of static quality and Dynamic Quality then your presence on this forum is very peculiar.
>> You seem to be saying the endpoint of meditation is experience. Yes?
>> And perhaps my presence here is peculiar. I hadn't planned on
>> returning but here I am. I find that a bit peculiar myself.
> Yes. Well how do you see the difference between Zen and the MOQ? Are they the same thing to you?
I would say there is no endpoint to meditation. It may or may not
bring us closer to experience depending upon the ability of the
practitioner but that is not an endpoint. Experience is like a river
always flowing from here to there. It has no endpoint.
The MOQ does have an endpoint. It is a metaphysics for ordering our
experience but it is not experience. Robert Pirsig says that writing a
metaphysics is a degenerate activity. Is zen a degenerate activity
>>>>>> Now, with such matters as a malfunctioning bike we need that endpoint
>>>>>> in order to understand the why. I mean, if we are to fix it, of
>>>>>> course. We can berate the bike, calling it names and kicking it. We
>>>>>> could just throw up our hands and say the hell with it, park it in the
>>>>>> garage, and let it rust for the next 30 years. We could bring it to a
>>>>>> mechanic who will rationally determine the why of the malfunction and
>>>>>> work towards the endpoint of fixing it.
>>>>>> Likening this to one's own life, we can see how people mirror these
>>>>>> activities. They can blame the world for the dilemma they find
>>>>>> themselves mired in, or their parents, or The Man, or any other entity
>>>>>> that seemingly has it out for them. Or they can take the initiative to
>>>>>> understand their own faults and work toward the endpoint of resolving
>>>>>> those issues. Or they can park themselves in front of a tv, drink a
>>>>>> case of beer each night, and vegetate their lives away. Or they can
>>>>>> seek professional help such as therapists and counselors who dedicate
>>>>>> their lives to sorting out the troubles of others.
>>>>> Right I see how they are both the same thing..
>>>>> But sometimes, for me at least, it will be because the quality of a situation is low and it is a matter of determining what is wrong so that I can get out of that bad situation. We might say that getting out of that bad situation is the goal but there is no real goal that I am following other than following some sorta undefined 'betterness'. To do this I might question the situation to try and re-adjust my current understanding of the situation to see which of my original assumptions might be wrong. This makes me think of the Brujo example…
>>>>> "If you had asked the brujo what ethical principles he was following he probably wouldn't have been able to tell you. He wouldn't have understood what you were talking about. He was just following some vague sense of 'betterness' that he couldn't have defined if he had wanted to."
>>>>> The Brujo doesn't have a why for what he is doing. He is just following some sort of undefined betterness. We can ascribe whys to what he is doing but doing so would be an after thought and not what is actually driving him.
>>>> Ah. This is true. And yes, to follow undefined betterness while
>>>> working on a motorcycle is a viable option when one becomes stuck on a
>>>> problem. An artful mechanic might even seem like a brujo to the
>>>> uninitiated, a worker of magic, conjuring solutions out of nothing.
>>>> What is driving the mechanic, though, is an endpoint, a solution to
>>>> why the bike isn't running or running properly.
>>> We can attribute that drive to what the mechanic is doing.. but as we agreed, what the artful mechanic does is follow undefined betterness and not a specific goal at all.. I disagree with you that the goal is 'driving him'. What is driving the artful mechanic is the same as what is driving all things - it is this moving *away* from this low quality static situation where he is stuck with a broken bike and towards this undefined betterness.
>> Then how does he fix the bike? Not sure I would want someone working
>> on my bike if they were simply following some undefined betterness.
>> The kid at the bike shop who starting chiseling and hammering on the
>> narrator's bike engine in ZMM probably thought he was following some
>> kind of undefined betterness. Was he?
> No. He wasn't. As is espoused in ZMM - the flip side to Quality is caring. The kid didn't care about the machine or his job. If he cared and then tried to do a good job - this would be reflected in his work.
But he was trying. He showed up for work. He must have impressed his
superior as a person who could be trusted to work on motorcycles,
right? Perhaps he found himself stuck and to use a hammer and chisel
seemed better even though if you asked him why he couldn't answer you.
Wasn't he following a kind of undefined betterness?
> It's often thought that "grooving on it" without much thought or care for intellectual and social values is a good thing. People often mistake a true master of something and see his non-attachment as not-caring.. It isn't. To get good at something by perfecting and mastering it takes great care.. Something often lacking in this modern world of ours..
My point about the kid in the motorcycle shop was that if he had been
following a rational method of motorcycle maintenance he would know
beating on an engine with a hammer and chisel is not a good thing.
Instead, he seemed to be following an undefined method of what was
>>>>>>>>> The question of why can have an intellectual but also a DQ answer.
>>>>>>>> Would that be a non-answer?
>>>>>>> A DQ answer as I explained above.
>>>>>> A Dynamic Quality answer is not this, not that. It isn't rational.
>>>>> An 'actual' Dynamic Quality answer is 'not this, not that' yes. But even those words are not Dynamic Quality. So really the words 'Dynamic Quality' are an intellectual designation used in the MOQ to denote what Dynamic Quality is. This is degeneracy yes, but the person who doesn't ruin the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who doesn't exist and to who no thought has been given.
>>>> Yes, it isn't rational…
>>> To be clear Dynamic Quality is not just things which aren't rational.. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing including things which aren't rational. It isn't even an intellectual construct but we use these words to degeneratively create an intellectual metaphysics which beautifully matches our experience.
>> I would say the MOQ orders experience in a better way than
>> subject/object metaphysics. It doesn't match our experience though. No
>> static quality construct can do that.
> That depends on what you call 'experience'. Is experience just Dynamic Quality? I think that experience can be both Dynamic Quality and static quality depending on the experience.. Often we can distinguish between the two by saying that Dynamic Quality is *direct* experience and static patterns of experience are created as a result of this direct experience.
As I said earlier, in the MOQ experience comes first. Experience is
seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality. Static quality emerges from
experience. Static quality isn't some pre-existing set of patterns
waiting to be experienced. Think of the hot stove example in Lila.
Should a person sit upon a hot stove it isn't the heat that gets them
off the stove. It is a dim apprehension of they know not what. It is
only later that they label it heat and cuss about it.
>>>>>>>>> All static things including meditation can be questioned. That is not their goal but they can all be questioned with a 'why?' Zen does have a why whose answer is DQ. That's what Koans are aren't they? What about sitting without Koans? Why do we sit? Don't we find the answer to this question by sitting? In this regard, Zen doesn't ignore the role of the intellect but it's goal is not intellectual. It shows us how to 'overcome' the intellect by putting it to sleep. The same *can* be true for motorcycle maintenance. Through mastery of motorcycle maintenance we can put the intellect to sleep as well. In fact that is the mastery of it. When it goes to sleep we go 'aha' and we have a breakthrough and discover what is actually wrong with the machine.
>>>>>>>> When an artful mechanic acts they do so by thinking to fulfill an
>>>>>>>> inadequacy in the machine they are fixing. A mystic through non-action
>>>>>>>> reveals the world without thought. What you seem to be asking is: can
>>>>>>>> they be one and the same? I would say it is possible but doubtful
>>>>>>>> while another person might say it is very likely. I suspect we might
>>>>>>>> both be both right and wrong... probably at the same time.
>>>>>>> I don't like that answer as it is non-intellectual. I like philosophy because it attempts, however badly or well it might do so, to capture the impossible and give some intellectual meaning to our existence.
>>>>>> What if the only meaning to existence is to be free of existence?
>>>>> That is the viewpoint of Zen. But I am not a Zen Buddhist so I don't fully agree with that. As I've said and is explained in Lila, we are alive, and being alive we can't help but ruin the ultimately undefined nature of the universe with fixed metaphysical meanings. Picking up bar ladies and writings metaphysics are a part of life. So as we're alive and ruining this ultimately undefinable nature of the universe, we might as well get these definitions of ours as good as we can! One of those definitions is saying that Dynamic Quality exists and the meaning to existence is to both experience Dynamic Quality *and* improve quality of things.
>>>> Actually I was thinking of this quote from Lila:
>>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no
>>>> mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the
>>>> question been taken up of whether life is heading away from
>>>> mechanistic patterns?" [Lila]
>>>> Since the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality as synonymous with experience to
>>>> say we experience Dynamic Quality is a bit of a misnomer. Since there
>>>> is no mechanistic pattern toward which our existence is leading, isn't
>>>> it better to question if it is heading away from it?
>>> Right. But as I mention above, we are doing more than just moving away from these static patterns.. We are also creating static patterns as a result of experiencing DQ and these are not illusory as the Buddhists say.
>> I see you saying we experience experience. Is that what you mean? But
>> what does that mean? Also, I find it confusing when you say the
>> Buddhists claim static patterns are an illusion. I should think the
>> MOQ states that we are a collection of static patterns of value but
>> these patterns are provisional. They only work until something better
>> comes along. Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value,
> The Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value because the MOQ was created long after Buddhism existed. However, we can use the MOQ to describe what Zen Buddhists are saying in a beautiful way….
> Try this example from RMP in LC:
> "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self” Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality.
> So using the MOQ we can say that the small self of Zen Buddhism is the patterns. Thus as we know, in Zen Buddhism, the small self is an illusion which is to be overcome by Zen practice and reveal the Big self which is there all along.
So you are saying the patterns like the self are an illusion.
>>>>> Discovering this answer by the emptying out of the mind… Is this really a rational activity?
>>>> Absolutely. One steeps the mind in the problem, considering every
>>>> angle, every possible solution, and then just sets the problem aside.
>>> agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
>>> having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
>>> being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectlyrational.
>>> endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
>>> of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
>>> What is rational activity to you?
>> The dictionary definitions work for me.
>>> To me it is intellectual activity… Intellectually deciding to set the problem aside, and following though on that decision - is to no longer rationally think about that problem.
>> But the act of setting aside the problem is agreeable to reason, is it
>> not? It is exercising sound judgement, is it not? Doesn't it pertain
>> to rational faculty? Rather than beating one's head against a
>> seemingly intractable problem it is sometimes better to set it aside.
>> This is a rational decision, is it not?
> Yes. The decision making to do that is intellectual as I say above… But also as I say above - *following through on that decision - is to no longer rationally think about the problem*. There is a doing which is non-intellectual and non-rational. It's before all intellectual distinction..
Well, actually it is after the intellectual distinction, is it not?
Otherwise there would be no distinction.
>>>>> Is it rationally following the steps of logical induction and deduction to arrive at how to solve the problem. As you admit, these can be exhausted and still no solution presents itself. This is where it motorcycle maintenance becomes very much an art. Some can give in and say it's not fixable, or others might start to try and fix something which isn't broken. But art is more than this. Art is high quality endeavour. Art is being a good motorcycle mechanic and caring for the machine. Motorcycle maintenance is more than a rational activity. Rationality will get you only part of the way there. Having 'great peace of mind' before you begin the maintenance is not part of logical rationality but it is necessary to be an artful mechanic.
>>>> I disagree. Peace of mind can be cultivated. It isn't something that
>>>> appears magically of its own accord. When one finds oneself drifting
>>>> away from the center, it is best to bring awareness back into focus.
>>>> There is nothing mystical about it. It is a rational activity.
>>> Peace of mind can indeed be cultivated.. The cultivation of peace of mind is indeed achieved by bringing awareness back into focus.. I disagree though that there isn't anything mystical about it or that it is exclusively a rational activity just as you seem to agree below… The mystical aspect is the bringing oneself back to the present moment and to what you are doing.. This is not rationally thinking about the problem necessarily - sometimes it is just staring at the machine..
>> To be in touch with the moment may seem mystical to the uninitiated
>> just as a thunder stick must have seemed mystical to the early Native
>> Americans who first encountered Europeans. Experience is just
>> experience. That doesn't mean it is entirely rational, however.
> Over and again in Lila Pirsig repeatedly associates mysticism to the MOQ and Dynamic Quality…
> "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."
> " But mystic learning goes in the opposite direction and tries to hold to the ongoing Dynamic edge of all experience, both positive and negative, even the Dynamic ongoing edge of thought itself. Phaedrus thought that of the two kinds of students, those who study only subject-object science and those who study only meditative mysticism, it would be the mystic students who would get off the stove first. The purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself from experience but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, confusing, static, intellectual attachments of the past."
> "The Metaphysics of Quality identifies religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality. It says the subject-object people are almost right when they identify religious mysticism with insanity. The two are almost the same. Both lunatics and mystics have freed themselves from the conventional static intellectual patterns of their culture. The only difference is that the lunatic has shifted over to a private static pattern of his own, whereas the mystic has abandoned all static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality."
> "The Metaphysics of Quality associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality.."
> Mysticism isn't a bad word Dan. The MOQ is fundamentally mysticism. But it differs from religious mysticism where mysticism says that the static patterns are an illusion. The static patterns of the MOQ are a result of this fundamentally mystic reality and are not illusory.
I think you may be contradicting yourself here. Earlier you said the
patterns like the self are an illusion. Now you say they are not. Be
that as it may, I am not saying mysticism is a bad word. Where did you
get that notion? Because I said motorcycle maintenance is a rational
activity and not a mystical one? It seems obvious that RMP agrees when
he says the central reality of mysticism is not a metaphysical chess
piece. There is no manual for it. One will not learn to fix a
motorcycle by relying on mysticism.
Since it seeks to define reality it seems clear that the MOQ is not
fundamentally a mystic endeavor. It is a rational endeavor. As RMP
says, it goes against the mystic notion that experience cannot be
defined. But like the fatty who can't stay out of the frig he goes
ahead and does it anyway.
>>>>>> This too though is a rational activity.
>>>>>> One has purposely set aside the work until it is time to work again.
>>>>> I purposely set aside time to sit in meditation. Is meditation for me now a rational activity?
>>>> That depends. Do you have a goal?
>>> Yes, the static quality goal of experiencing DQ. But as soon as I sit and say.. "I am here to experience DQ." Then I won't ever experience DQ. This is why the 'goal' of meditation is really 'no goal'.. This contradiction is explained by the gateless gate.. From a static quality everyday perspective the gate is the goal.. But once you experience the goal you realise that there is no goal because the goal is the source of all things.. This same experience can be found when we achieve many different goals.. However the results of our toils is less apparent when we sit. This is because all we have been doing is perfecting something as simple as sitting and not trying to master our maintenance of a bike which, all going well, would result in a fixed bike and the art which produced it.
>> So you see, a goal to experience experience is a fool's goal.
>> Experience is right here! You already experience! In order to repair a
>> bike one must be rationally aware of the steps involved in such a
>> process, otherwise they are a fool attempting the impossible just as
>> the person who sits in meditation attempting to experience experience.
> As mentioned previously - I think there is a difference between following the steps to repair a bike when you know what the problem is and determining the problem with the bike. In this regard just sitting is no different to just fixing.. Sure, there are rational components to fixing a bike which aren't part of sitting once the problem has been diagnosed but, as any good mechanic will tell you, this isn't the hard part of fixing a bike..
I am not sure how familiar you are with today's machines but they
actually tell a mechanic what is wrong with them. All one need do is
hook the machine up to a scanner or code reader and it will tell the
mechanic where the problem resides.
On the other hand, older machines do require a diagnosis by the
mechanic. Still, this requires a mechanic to follow a rational set of
actions, such as testing the components, checking the manual, asking
other mechanics for advice, etc. And yes it is very difficult
sometimes to figure out the problem. Key word, figure. Think.
>>>>>> The mystic on the other hand strives to set aside thought. Working a
>>>>>> koan has nothing to do with rationality. A typical Westerner may think
>>>>>> that working a koan is the same as thinking about it but that isn't
>>>>>> so. Even if the practitioner takes on a koan in a rational way it soon
>>>>>> becomes apparent that there is nothing rational about it. So they
>>>>>> either give up or give in.
>>>>> Right. But is that rational activity not a part of the discovering process of the answer for the koan. As you say, we will rationally try and answer it and try and try, and until we give up(not good), or give in. But give in to what? To DQ? Isn't that the whole point of the Koan? Koans point you to that place where you cannot rationally solve something. But in order to understand that you must be rational to begin with.. see?
>>>> Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. We cover 'it' up with
>>>> thought. So thinking about a koan will only take one away, not bring
>>>> one closer.
>>> If that is so then why have koans? Why do they exist? Aren't they just a distraction? I don't think that they are. I think they are there to be thought about.. They point to that non rational place where you can't solve anything.. Think and think and think about them but they have no immediate answer… Like sitting, the mind will start on them at a great pace thinking about how to solve the riddle. What becomes more and more apparent by thinking about them though, is that the answer to this riddle is not rational and one will become more and more acquainted with what is the source of this riddle - DQ.
>> I don't know why there are koans. I should think some zen master in
>> the past thought there was some value to them but I don't know for
>> sure. If one thinks about solving a koan they are only covering up
>> that for which they seek, in my opinion. But that was my point. There
>> is no need for koans. They are a crutch, a tool, a method of pointing
>> to that which cannot be pointed to, I suppose. Once used they are
>> discarded as unnecessary accoutrements.
> So you don't know why there are Koans but at the same time you recognise that they are a tool and a method of pointing to that which cannot be pointed to?
Well, as I said, that is what I suppose. Whether they are or not, I
don't really know.
> Thank-you Dan,
You're welcome. Thank you too.
More information about the Moq_Discuss