[MD] The value of static patterns.

[118]

On 3/21/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>> I think that interpretations of MoQ could fall well within the range
>> of such "Eastern perspective".  Since the world is becoming more
>> harmonious due to global internet and so forth, this mixing should
>> result in a combination of the two.  Hopefully the best from each
>> world view will be adopted rather than the worst.  Often things sink
>> to the lowest common denominator though.
>
> Yeah, however what's best in the Western perspective?

In my opinion, what is wrong with the Western perspective is written
about by Pirsig in ZAMM after Phaedrus goes to the "other side", and
is wandering the city.  An alternative to that could be "best" for the
Western perspective.  Thus MoQ.
>
>> I do not think the mystical view is where DQ and sq are "one and the
>> same".  Within the mystical view there is also DQ and sq, as presented
>> in many of the mystical texts.  The dynamic interplay between both
>> becomes much more apparent in a mystical view, imo.  The mystical is
>> more closely related to "feelings" than actual intellect.  These
>> feeling are encapsulated by archetypes (such as snakes and such).  The
>> nature of these archetypes is well understood as symbolic, much more
>> than words on a page in the West are seen as symbolic.  We have more
>> attachment to words than a mystic would.  If we let go of this
>> attachment, we allow DQ to have a greater impact on our lives.  One
>> can read a book about Argentina, or one can actually go visit.  During
>> a visit, the words on the page are inconsequential, and direct
>> experience is more important.  Sq does not show what lies behind the
>> sq, it can only point there.  DQ provides the show.
>
> So sq is there just to point to DQ?

That is one of the things that it does.  It also helps us start our
cars in the morning, and choose food from a menu.  Yes... that's about
it, just those three things unless you can think of some others...

>
>> Any teaching should be written in a language that we understand, and
>> taught by someone we can relate to.  This "language" must conform to
>> the reasoning that we have been educated during the first 12 years of
>> our lives (reasoning outside of that is considered "insane"), or the
>> education can take a long time.  I believe that MoQ can deliver the
>> same result as the studying of Zen.  I believe that Pirsig stated that
>> where he "got to" by his Quality approach, was similar to where Zen
>> students "get to" with their approach.
>>
>> It is important to have a goal in mind with all of these studies, imo.
>> Once cannot simply hope to get someplace by shear luck.  If one has
>> the appropriate goal with MoQ, I see no reason why it cannot get one
>> there.  Even reading Kant's "What is Enlightenment" can bring about
>> enlightenment if the goal for doing so is there.
>>
>> Hope my answers are not too spontaneous, but they come from the heart.
>> I welcome any thoughts of yours on these subjects.
>
> So we just need to have a goal of DQ and not sq? So if I just have a goal of
> DQ, then I need not worry about the patterns I am creating?

Not a goal of DQ, a goal of understanding.  Why do you wish to learn
more about MoQ by participating in this forum?  This is a serious
question, I just want to understand.
>
Cheers,
Mark

> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>