[MD] Marsha is a mystic.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

> Yes, I agree it is about perspective.  We are trying to get away from
> the engrained perspective where everything becomes classified as an
> object, or a subsidiary of some truth, and we look more at the event
> behind the object.  When one strives towards the Good, the Good is not
> an object, nor is it a matter of taste.  It is what each of us feels
> inherently pushing us forward.  It comes without classification, just
> like the feeling of morality cannot be classified.  It just is, and we
> operate within in.

Yep.

>> Do you never suffer Mark?
> 
> Sure, but less than I used to.  I was also ripe for Buddhism for a
> while, and it is from that perspective that I speak to you.  I feel
> pain, but it is pain without all the negative attachment that comes
> with it; it is just pain.  I suppose it could be considered a "trick
> of the mind" to convert most everything into a positive experience.
> But I think it is more fundamental than that.  I believe it aligns
> with the arrow in the universe.  Floating down the stream as it were,
> without grabbing on the branches for fear of what is around the
> corner.  I have to say, I have completely lost the fear of death,
> which used to plague me.

Well that's good Mark. We are lucky to be alive!

>> I agree. But where does life sq come from? To begin with static quality is new. But does it continue as new forever? We can pretend that sq never gets old but this would be misrepresenting the natural state of things.
> 
> I can agree with that, static quality, at least in its humanized form
> is drawn from the well.  It is the need to attach to things so that we
> feel we have a place in the universe, that we belong.  I also agree
> that one cannot live without attachment alone, for that removes much
> of the meaning that I find so fulfilling.  I am one for balance.  We
> have gone so far into the static nature of things that our involvement
> with DQ is hidden.  This is of course my own opinion, and jibes with
> what Pirsig wrote about at the end of ZAMM.

Yeap, I agree. I think we have especially gone too far into the static nature of things in the area of Philosophy.  Modern philosophy is so old and complex.  Time for some new perspective...

> Yes, I suppose so.  It is so difficult to understand without being
> right in front of a person over a cup of coffee.  I am sure we agree
> in most things MoQ.

Indeed. 

>> There isn't a thing in existence which hasn't defined some thing as static and this is against the fundamental nature of the universe.
> 
> I cannot see how what we do is against the fundamental nature of the
> universe.  

I think, as I said earlier, that it's a matter of perspective.  Fundamentally, we cannot define the universe. We always try and always get it wrong.   But that is fundamentally. There are two perspectives.  From the perspective of the Mystic, we cannot define anything. From the perspective of sq; everything is a definition.  Neither one nor the other is 'right'. This is the power of the dichotomy of the MOQ. It says that, in the end, the Mystics are right. But we can't avoid this defining so we should define things as best we can.

> As I see it DQ and sq must coexist together, like matter
> and energy.  The forces in physics displays the way in which these two
> interact.  This is why I have been advocating a third quality which
> describes (yes, I know, a no-no) the connection between DQ and sq.
> Otherwise we are left with mutually exclusive qualities.  By way of
> reason, this third component must be separate from the other two, for
> it to exert an effect.  In the same way, the fundamental forces of
> physics (as we currently depict them) are separate from both energy
> and mass.  Most of the physicists would probably dissagree with me
> since that try to encapsulate everything int a single category (of
> course I can be a renegade since I am not really a physicist :-).
> But, we must ask, why do energy and mass interchange.  The same is
> true for DQ and sq.  Why?  Because that is how metaphysics works.  Be
> it degenerate or not.  It is the game we play.

Yes, neither perspective is 'right'. But both have a role to play.

> Personally I do not see this existence as man against nature, for that
> creates a dichotomy where there is none.  It is simply the ever
> present "evolution" of what is.  Certainly species try to survive by
> making sure they do not foul their environment, and such is the battle
> between "progress" and conservatism (or environmentalism).  However,
> to demonize ourselves for what we have the capability of doing is
> nihilistic.

Yes, but it's important to remind ourselves that excess of either is nihilistic.  

> What Pirsig writes below is the paradox of any movement to stop
> change.  Some people do not bother with that, and just go into bars
> and pick up ladies.  Writing metaphysics is no different from drinking
> water.  I do not see it as evil, but an ability that we have.  If
> anything, the universe is creative.  We play a small part in that.

I agree. But each side in these dichotomies plays an important part.

>> Because that is not possible. I'm defining things right now Mark and so are you - whether we like it or not..
> 
> Yes, this is also the reason why we cannot find DQ with sq.  It is the
> wrong tool to use, since all we find is more sq.  We cannot understand
> our understanding.  If there is any Meta-understanding at all, it does
> not come from the intellect.
> 
> However, I (personally) do not like the idea that we have eaten from
> the tree of knowledge therefore we are bad.  Words bring much meaning
> and color to life.
> 
> You may be interested in the following podcast from Radiolab, in which
> the importance of words is explored.  Check it out when you are going
> on a trip, or can't fall asleep.
> 
> http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/

Okay Mark, shall do. I think we do agree a fair bit..

>> Where is the embracing of the MOQ supposed to lead Mark?
> 
> Well, I suppose I can give you an opinion.  At present we find
> ourselves somewhat estranged from this world as if we are somehow not
> part and parcel of it.  This is due to the imbalance caused by our
> Western way of thinking where we think we both own and understand
> things if we create words for them.  The classifications dominate and
> the underlying meaning is lost.  So, in my opinion it would lead to
> Peace, Love, and Happiness!  Yes I am being sarcastic.  I do think
> that enhanced meaning and connectivity comes from contemplation of
> MoQ,but that is just me.  Existentialism has run its course, it is
> time to return back a bit.

I think we should go aaaaaaaall the way back. I'm sure you agree...

> Thanks for bearing with me, sometimes my rhetoric is purely
> provocative.  I need to find a better way...

No worries Mark,

-David.