But, I believe that if you peal away the emotional layers, this is a wonderful example of intellect attacking social norms and a social system (in this case mainstream Israeli society) struggling to advance. A single homosexual father to surrogate-born twins is more then the current social system can accommodate. You can tell by the government officials’ lame responses – they are not really stupid people, they are facing a frightening change of social values – and their fear blinds them and … well makes them sound stupid. The problem is that the legal system has not yet matured enough and is not yet equipped to process this situation and as a result one man’s struggle is actually shouldering an entire society and its stagnant social values.

My family values are not typical family values – to be honest I don’t know yet know quite what they are. This current event together with my recent immersion in Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality got me thinking about family.

On one hand family is the most fundemental building block in the social structure that is society. Family regulates the biological conditions for bringing new people into society. Family is the first and most dominant environment for transmission of social values to new members of society. Family embodies the most intense emotionally committing relationships. Family often represents a mechanism for acquiring social and economic status through marriage. Family often stretches out into adult life through family-businesses (Dad & Sons Inc.). While there are various social definitions of family, I am guessing that most (if not all) societies have some kind of construct that represent a basic social building block.

On the other hand family is the most exposed social building block to intellect-rooted change. Family is almost exlusively free (even in the most tightly controlled societies) to form it’s own mix of social & intellectual values. In the privacy of a home parents can choose to introduce intellectual values that are not aligned with the social norms of the world outside the home (or even the extended family). Almost all social structures outside the family are by definition larger and therefor more socially dominant – they are often charged with promoting and enforcing social values (especially education systems which are supposedly dedicated to intellectual values). Family is probably the only social structure where intellectual rebellion can find support – a father can choose to support a rebellious teen even though there may be a conflict in values – because family trumps!

Seen from the outside, family is a building block cemented into the foundations of society. Seen from the inside family is an incubator for change. Society is built upon family while family incubates dynamic change that will attack society and force it to change. In the war of social-vs.-intellect, family-bonding is poised (like carbon did for biology?) to tip the scales in favor of intellect.

Marriages (two people choosing to spend life together) that challenge religious and social boundaries, homosexuals, single-parents, surrogates … these are all expressions of change, of personal pursuit for fullfillment and expression, of intellectual liberation struggling against static social patterns … all taking place within family. For me that sheds new and important light on family!

It amuses and placates me to know that people like Andreea & I and this proud gay father are the ones carrying the torch of change on behalf of a unknowing and ignorant society who treats us like enemies.

When the perceived world becomes to ominous for an individual to bare – depression is a popular solution that appears. Depression is sophisticated. It is a strategy of freedom through surrender. To the outside world it appears to be a collapse, and as such it disposes of almost all expectations. A depressed person is not expected to function and partake in the workings of the world. A depressed person is not held accountable emotionally intellectually, and even biologically (sustaining the body by eating and drinking). On the inside a depressed person is therefore free from responsibilities, even though on the outside this person may be completely dependent on others.

This internal place of freedom is a place of healing. Cumbersome chains of life are replaced by emptiness and unknown – by an opportunity for re-framing thoughts & emotions. Unfortunately it isn’t usually this idyllic because of interruptions from the outside world. Depression is frightening for observers, probably much more then it is to the depressed. Depression is not a pleasant sight, it isn’t intended to be. It doesn’t cater to outside expectations and norms – it is by it’s nature an escape from all these into a private, intimate and isolated place. It is as natural for observers to fear and misunderstand depression as it is for a depressed individual to embrace it.

When observers aren’t capable of containing their fears, they naturally act on them, they work to dispel them. Unfortunately, when it comes to depression they engage not themselves, but another, and not just any other – a depressed other, an other that is depressed because of similar previous unwanted engagements. They insist on helping, but their thoughts and actions are systemically perceived as threatening and aggressive by the depressed individual they are trying to help.

When observers are capable of containing their fears, they can create and facilitate a supportive experience. They can create a supportive, embracing, protective, light and spacious bubble in which a depressed person can rest and depression can do it’s job. They can help a natural process of healing take place. They can transform their fears into giving, understanding and love – and in doing so better themselves to.

When outside intervention interferes with depression the healing process is compromised. The process of getting better is interrupted. This is what happens with most medications for depression. Medication is easier for the observers because it reduces symptoms and promises “recovery”. Medication robs depressed people of their internal freedom. Medication is intended to pull them back into the reality they are trying to escape. As a result many people live their lives in a place of compromise, with a backdrop of depression that sometimes resurfaces, but is mostly contained & sustained. There is no way to completely uproot a inherent urge to change.

Sometimes when outside intervention interferes with depression it leads to suicide.

“The intelligence of the mind can’t think of any reason to live, but it goes on anyway because the intelligence of the cells can’t think of any reason to die.”

Robert Pirsig – Lila: An Inquiry into Morals

Suicide

Professionals often cite (though it is rarely public knowledge) suicide as one of the leading causes of death in societies – many times outnumbering and outweighing car accident deaths, terrorism, smoking & other life-threatening illnesses. In the dominant spirit of scientific thought this gives birth to the question of what can be done about it? What can be done do battle this disease?

But what if suicide is not an individual illness but an illness of society itself? A society in which so many individuals are choosing an extreme and deadly change needs to ask itself (if such a thing is possible) what are we doing wrong? How can we get better? What is it about our society that makes so many individuals prefer an unknown death over a known life? What is it about our society that makes it so difficult to even admit that we may be having a problem – that we don’t even dare talking about it?

People & societies are strongly affected by the adversities they meet and how they meet them. Terrorism is a prominant example of a force that shapes our lives – it fosters in us fear and violence. What would happen to our societies if we were to acknowledge and allow suicide to affect us? People who wield swords against a society need to be met with violence – hence violence manifests. People who shy away from society need to be met with love – is it not therefore reasonable to expect love to manifest?

Freedom

When depression calls out to you there is very little you can do to resist it. Once inside it is an amazingly peaceful and addictive experience – you really don’t want out. If you follow it through you will change. It is a liberating presence that takes you away from everything you know & despise to something that is unknown & unpredictable. Depression is a process of creating new life – a kind of rebirth.

The pursuit of creativity, inspiration, personal expression  & freedom is a sign of our times. It indicates that something is missing. People are looking for magical keys that will open magical doors to magical realms. What if for many people depression is/was their doorway & opportunity to this elusive salvation? What if they had been given the opportunity to go through it – would they have found what they are looking for? What if depression is another example of blindness to what is right before our eyes? What if depression is another example of a miraculous natural phenomenon we discard and trample because we don’t understand it?

It is naive to expect a life transforming experience to be a pleasant session of sitting in a group of people in a circle, all dressed in white, holding hands thinking positive thoughts decorated with tears of joy. Life transformation is a difficult and painful process of letting go of superficially comforting and familiar patterns and standing naked before the unknown. Depression is not a disease. Depression is a natural sedative that makes it sanely possible to enter an insanely terrifying change.

A speech given in 1867 by Ten Bears a Comanche chief:

There are things which you have said to me which I do not like. They were not sweet like sugar, but biter like gourds. You said that you wanted to put us upon a reservation, to build us houses and to make us Medicine lodges. I do not want them.

I was born on the prairie, where the wind blew free, and there was nothing to break the light of the sun. I was born where there were no enclosures, and where everything drew a free breath. I want to die there, and not within walls. I know every stream and every wood between the Rio Grande and the Arkansas. I have hunted and lived over in that country. I lived like my fathers before me, and like them I lived happily.

When I was at Washington, the Great Father told me that all the Comanche land was ours, and that no one should hinder us in living upon it. So why do you ask us to leave the rivers, and the sun, and the wind, and live in houses? Do not ask us to give up the buffalo for the sheep. The young men have heard talk of this and it has made them sad and angry. Do not speak of it any more. I love to carry out the talk I get from the Great Father. When I get goods and presents, I and my people feel glad since it shows that he holds us in his eye. If the Texans had kept out of my country, there might have been peace. But that which you now say we must live on is too small.

The Texans have taken away the places where the grass grew the thickest and the timber was the best. Had we kept that, we might have done this thing you ask. But it is too late. The white man has the country which we loved and we only wish to wander on the prairie until we die. Any good thing you say to me shall not be forgotten. I shall carry it as near to my heart as my children and it shall be as often on my tongue as the name of the Great Spirit. I want no blood upon my land to stain the grass. I want it all clear and pure, and I wish it so, that all who go through among my people may find peace when they come in, and leave it when they go out.

(taken from “Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals” by Robert Pirsig)

My efforts to share my photography work (StillCreation, SweetClarity) have always been rooted in a wish to share with others something of the magical experiences that have been bestowed on me. Almost all of my work has taken place in improvised settings – creating alongside talented, inspiring and passionate people. For me, images that are created in this work are echoes of fleeting and sometimes life-changing moments in which I was present. I make images available to others in the hope that something from those experience will touch them as well.

In this spirit I answered the invitation to incorporate my work into Arkadi’s performance. Arkadi is a talented and well renowned artist in Israel. His recent songs are anchored in spiritual studies and the texts I encountered offered a warm embrace to my images. With this in heart I embraced the invitation and offered my works. Yesterday some of them met an audience of ~500 people, and over coming months they may meet many more. For this I am grateful.

On a more personal, may be more egoistic, note, I did not enjoy seeing my images the way the were displayed. There were a 2 or 3 moments in which incidental meetings between images and words resonated in my heart. There were many more moments where I encountered wonderful opportunities for wonderful meetings between words, music and images – but they did not manifest. When my images were screened, I felt as if I was one of the musicians on stage – but it felt as if my microphone wasn’t properly connected – I was getting cut off mid-phrase and then reappearing out of context.

The dialogue about including my images began a week before the performance. 24 hours before the performance I spoke to the video artist for the first time and sent her images for preparation and editing. There simply wasn’t enough time & space to create a caring and intimate relationship between the images, the songs and the performance. I would have liked to spend more time creating a deeper relationship. I would have preferred that the visual art work received caring attention as the songs did when they were written, the musicians forged in rehearsing and playing together and the production received in light, sound, documentation and recording.

I hope this was just a beginning and that there will be an opportunity to develop the work.

And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good -
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

A couple days ago I picked up Andreea from work, she had just treated a couple to a massage. She was happy and filled with energy and said she had a great time and that the couple enjoyed them-selves. This isn’t the first time, I’ve seen her like this before, I’ve seen people leaving her after a treatment and I’ve heard her praised by others. Andreea belongs to a rare breed of professionals who are a league apart from most of the people in her field – she was gifted with opportunities to study with inspiring teachers carrying quality teachings, and in very intimate settings over a substantial period of time. I have experienced the touch of both her & her teachers and it is a world apart from most of the “spa” treatments on the market.

Almost everyone who has experienced her touch can tell the difference and usually expresses it. As we were driving home I thought about this and a smile came to my face. It reminded me that people, all people, know quality when they experience it. Quality is indeed a universal thing, it transcends culture & words – everyone knows it and recognizes it instantly – and it is distinct from everything else.

We cannot create Good, it is a relationship we can choose to enter with whatever we experience. We can nurture conditions that enable us to experience it. When people make time to come to a special place and treat themselves to a therapeutic treatment they can create these conditions. When Andreea meets them in kind spirit – Good makes an appearance.

Being reminded of this gives me hope.

You may want to also read Yoga for a Murky Mind

But, like all good things, dynamic quality has a sustaining force which moderates it and keeps it from burning out – it transforms into static-quality. It is kind of like a gravitational field that pulls it down. So initially Twitter gravitated into intellectual patters of usage – intellectual people started playing around with it (still with a quality of playfulness!) and realizing they can do all kinds of things with it.

Soon after I started using Twitter I was following Guy Kawasaki (sorry Guy, no promotional link here, if someone wants to they will have to go out and find you). Guy is most definitely an intellectual person, he is sharp, smart, witty and can be very inspirational. He got some ideas on how to utilize Twitter as a social tool to promote his work. It was as if a damn had broken and his message stream started to overflow to the point I could not tolerate it anymore and un-followed him – he (though by now numerous  people were sending messages on his behalf) became noisy and polluted my Twitter experience. Guy is not the only person to do this. There were others who did the same and Twitter continued to succumb to the pull of static quality into Social patterns.

It was now a just a matter of time before Oprah and her friends appeared. Quality was now clearly beginning to fade and make room for Quantity. The numbers grew and grew. Twitter seems to have embraced this patterns with it’s controversial Suggested Users List. Twitter is becoming socially crowded that some of the smart people who used it are considering walking away, some already have.

Though it may not seem possible, it seems Twitter has managed to filter even into biological patterns of quality. People are now trying twitter simply because they feel they have to (everyone else is!). People follow people in the hope that they will follow them back (a kind of foot-in-the-door marketing exploitation for making friends). Whenever I make a move in Twitter, the ripples include at least one lonely girl that wants to meet with me.

A Business Evolution?

To me, Twitter is a pivotal technology company. When it didn’t sell out to Facebook (for a reported $500 Million) it opened a  new chapter in technology history, it’s founders want to sustain the curiosity that brought them so far and remain true to their personal ambitions. Bravo!! Are we witnessing an alternative to the idea-killing and ecologically-polluting pattern of “business exits”? But that was just the first step of their struggle. Financial forces are still upon them, they are with them from the moment a first investor joined their team.

I have great respect for one of their investors – Fred Wilson and I invite you to watch this interview video with him. Mr Wilson represents to me a junction where forces collide and a potential for change rumbles – he is very sensitive to quality, values (not the monetizable kind) and he is also a VC – an, if you will, money person. I believe he has great faith in the people in whom he invests and in their ambitions and beliefs but he is also there to make a profit for his investors. He brought all of this into Twitter when he joined their team.

Money is bearing down on Twitter. It is pulling their attention away from improving by demanding “monetization”. If I could relay one thought to the founders of Twitter is it this. Your biggest  challenge is not in the market-place but in your investors. If you can convince them to connect and support your exploration and forgo their interests to make profit you may have a shot at discovering the magical potential of your dreams. This does not mean that Twitter CANNOT be financially profitable, it does mean that Twitter MAY not be financially profitable. You need to break free from economic forces and introduce… something else. If anyone can help you do this, it’s Fred Wilson. You are in a unique position to introduce a change in technology-business.

I would also like to bring together two thoughts I have collected from reading & listening to Fred Wilson. (1) You sometimes need to challenge obvious and acceptable patterns, those things people say can’t be done may be worth closer scrutiny  (2) “you can’t turn around and start charging people to use it [a free service]” (this is a quote from the above mentioned interview”.

1 + 1 = maybe you need to figure out how to do it effectively? A few months ago I would have gladly paid to use Twitter, now I am not so sure.

Last time I wrote about quality I focused on Dynamic Quality. This time I want to focus on Static Quality. I often catch myself favoring Dynamic Quality over Static Quality – and I know this to be a misapprehension. I cherish moments in which I experience Dynamic Quality – they are a precious experience to me. But then my dogmatic mind kicks in and instantly identifies that because Dynamic is good, static must be bad. This it the nature of my mind, but it is wrong. Static Quality is everything that leads to and away from Dynamic quality. Static is the ordinary routine of life – it is where I spend most of life, and it is what paves the way for me to encounter  Dynamic.

So I think Static Quality deserves a bit more attention. It seems that Robert Pirsig did too. His second book Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals is dedicated almost entirely to this subject. Though I found it to be less inspiring then “Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”, I have found in it a perspective that supports me in life. As I write these words I realized that indeed “Zen…” is an inspiring book that often comes to mind in creative context (Dynamic Quality) while “Lila” is a more intellectual book that comes to mind in dealing with day-to-day life (Static Quality).

Static Quality

This article was born when a visual image came to me. I hope it turns out to be an effective means of communication. This image starts with a blank canvas where static & dynamic quality meet and coexist. It may seem kind of empty – but actually for me it contains a core idea: all of life, existence & perception is a result of a meeting between static quality and dynamic quality.

This meeting of qualities gave birth to inorganic patterns of quality. This feels to me very close to a core concept in Samkhya Vedic Philosophy – which claims that existence is a meeting of two forces (qualities?) – consciousness (Purusha) and matter (Prakriti).

If I recall correctly Pirsig speaks highly of carbon and the choices it made (and continues to make). It seems that carbon felt it would be a good idea to continue to evolve into organic patterns – living cells and tissues. We should be grateful for this choice – these bodies in which we reside are a result of the choices carbon made when it encountered dynamic quality.

These biological patterns (you, me and your average human being and a huge diversity of forms of life) started to make their way in life and realized it would be a great idea to group together and face dynamic quality in packs instead of individually. And so social patterns emerged.

Our lives are flooded by social patterns – family, friends, work, hobbies, religion, neighborhoods, cities, countries, laws… it really is an endless list. Many of these patters are buried so deep inside us that we never notice their existence. It seems that social patterns were indeed a great choice since they gave birth & life to another  set of patterns – ideas – patterns of intellect.

An Interplay of Patterns of Quality

Robin Williams claims that “God gave men a brain and a penis but only enough blood to operate one of them at a time”. Many truths are bundled into this hillarious observation. We are constanly at war.

Patterns are co-dependent and co-exist. I have great ideas because there is time and space for me to have them. I have time because of social patterns that do a lot for me – so I don’t need to put up a shelter and go hunting every day.

Patterns are at war. When I am ill biological patterns take over and make sure I do what they need me to do to get better (!). Concentration and focus become fuzzy and primitive patterns can take over – resting & eating.  It would take tremendous effort (battle!) on my part to reassert social and intellectual patterns when biology is in play.

Patterns are vicious. Primitive patterns inhibit evolved patterns. Evolved patterns attack primitive patterns on which they depend to achieve freedom to continue and evolve. Revolutionary intellectual patterns are enemies to the very social patterns in which they grew. Society has very little tolerance for ideas of change and will usually work against them. Ideas of change struggle with existing social patterns – initially on the brink of survival and sometimes to sustain change. Struggle has been and continues to be a theme in my life.

Static patterns are doing their best. One thing patterns have in common is that they are all doing their best – and so they feel and believe that way. When I have a great idea my intellectual patterns are sure they know best (and can be rather vicious if they encounter other intellectual patterns that don’t agree).

Dynamic is better. Yet another thing patterns share is that they are all facing dynamic quality. Better is always just around the corner, out of reach and unknown. Better is something that comes at me, not something I can go to. I can be open to it and realize when it visits me or I can be dull and miss it even when it looks me in the eye. I noticed that the phrase “Dynamic is better” stimulates my mind into action and my mind attacks it – takes it apart, explains it and argues it. When this happens I try to remind myself that “Dynamic is better” is not an idea – it is a truth I choose to embrace. My minds reaction to this – coming to life with energy and movement – supports my choice. It is not a matter of rational or understanding it is a choice of faith.

Applied Quality

Dynamic quality is a source of inspiration for me. It is not “applicable” to anything – any attempt to apply it mindfully is futile – everything slips off it. I have faith in Dynamic Quality. My experience is that  it comes to me when I least expect it. The path to it is approached and paved with surrender, patience, clarity and intent. It is a sweet experience.

Static Patterns are the stuff of life. In my short indulgence of philosophic studies I recall (1) a criteria – that a system of philosophy needs to be available and applicable by non-philosophers;  (2) that the systems of philosophy that were then placed before me lacked inspiration and definitely lacked applicability.

Pirsig’s philosophy is, in my mind special because (1) it has traveled down the academic road and has evolved into a system of philosophy known as Metaphysics of Quality and (2) is a useful tool in facing many issues that appear before me and occupy my mind. I have a recurring experience of trying to work my way through a topic of interest to me, getting lost and then recalling the ideas of Static Quality which then show me a simple, sensible and interesting path.

Closing Words

I take comfort in the development of this visual image because of the empty space that remains where Dynamic Quality exists.

So I’ll start by shattering a myth on energy. It is misapprehension to view energy in terms of quantity. You can not have less energy or more energy. Paul often uses an effective metaphor – you are born with an engine – and that engine has a fixed capacity. How well you maintain it and how effectively you use it is to some extent up to you. But nothing you can do will effect the capacity of your engine – your energy capacity.

An alternative model of thinking about energy is quality. To generalize we can mention and relate to three modes/qualities of energy. The first is one in which our energy is diffused. This is often referred to as low energy. It is a state of agitation – when your energy is like this you literally take up more space, you bubble is bigger than your physical body. If you think about it, when you are agitated you can get really annoyed with people coming near you – this can explain it.

A second mode of energy is a more collected mode. You energy is near you and therefor more “at your service”. This can feel like you have more energy. I think it’s safe to say that most people that go to weekly Yoga classes are coming with a diffused energy. If you happen to go through a quality and effective practice you may end up more collected. This often brings with it a sense of quiet, clarity, lightness, alertness, etc.

The third mode of energy is a highly condensed mode. Your energy is now not just collected but also drawn inside the body. This can feel like hyper-energy. Most of the people I have known in life rarely visit this mode. I feel that it is mostly a myth for the main-stream western world. It requires a very intense, conscious,  continuous and passionate practice to go anywhere near this mode of energy.

Often, people that come to Yoga:

1. Come diffused and on occasion may end up collected.
2. Think they are collected and expect to reach condensation.
3. Take up a Yoga practice that matches their expectations.
4. Are  pushing and mistreating their engines.
5. Are actually coming diffused and staying there.

Next time when you are feeling “high energy” or “low energy”, I invite you to try this alternate perspective. You may find it useful. I don’t know of any “energy stations” where you can “acquire energy”, but I am sure you can think of things to do that can help you to collect your energy and to keep it from diffusing.

If you have read these books and have your own concepts of them , and feel that my interpretation misses the mark, please be gracious enough to accomodate the context of my words. If you are encountering this for the first time, please know that these words are not a substitue for the source – I do encourage you to read the books to expand your own experience & understanding.

Quality

It appears that a long time ago, before the ancient greeks, there were sophists who were masters rhetoricians. I like to think of them as master performers. Their art was story telling – and I have feeling that it was driven by a deep sense of purpose to share the sacred knowledge they carried.  They were in pursuit of good.

Their descendants were the ancient greeks – and among them, Pirsig names Aristotle and Plato (I’ll leave it at that – as I don’t remember who said what to whom, why and when!). Their art was dialectic – they were fierce arguers of logic and reasoning. The were in pursuite of right. I have a feeling they were a self important bunch of intellectuals. It seems that they were out to conquer (and succeeded!) the truth of western thought – and their greatest opponents where their ancestor – the sophists.

But, before they could tackle the sophists they had some internal affairs to solve first. They were divided amonst themselves! Some argued that reality (objects) exists and is fixed/constant and exists regardless of an observer. Others argued that reality is a transient thing that exists within the observer. I can really see all this happening in the stands of the olympic games (while all the jocks are playing in the field) or over a cool beer! Anyways, one of the big guns came out and offered a solution - he said that both claims are true in their own way – but that they are both merely concepts/ideas. Then and there was born a hierarchy – with ideas at the top and below it are subjects and objects…. and there was another important catch. This system was born and existed under the art of logical conversation and argument. To challenge it one needed to play the dialectic game.

So, armed with ideas and conversation the greeks turned on the sophists and disected their art by talking about it. They succeeded. To this day, western thought is governed by this strategy. Good has been run over by right. We cannot claim something is good without a good (haha!) explanation of why it is so. I don’t know if to laugh or cry at the irony!

Quality is that thing which the sophists held before it was digested by the greek intellectuals. It is an experience that precedes thought. It is not a measurable quantity. It is the governer of experience – quality chooses for you how the world is revealed to you – it does so in a manner that is best for you.

Static & Dynamic Quality

In “Lila” Pirsig continues to explore the idea of quality. He suggests a division of quality into static and dynamic. Static quality is an accumulation of patterns that we adopt from our life experience. I am sitting here at the computer writing post. To do this I rely on endless static quality patterns including those of reading & writing, typing at a computer, etc.

Yet when it comes to the actual writing I submit to an experience of dynamci quality. I do not know what I am going to write. I have a clear intent to write – but what I will actually say is not directly available to me. I try to stay open and available and let the thoughts arrive of themselves (as if they choose me instead of me choosing them). I am confident that the good ones will appear. My work is to stay open and available with a clear intent. The rest is in the hands of dynamic quality.

I can try writing with static quality – but I feel the results are not good – uninspiring. I have been carrying this very post with me for many weeks. Had I attempted to write it earlier – I would have encountered a block rather then a flowing sensation (this is not speculation – this used to happen a lot) where the words shape themselves around my intent. I feel that I have learned to identify when I am open and available (in a given context) – then I can pull out my static patterns and they can support me as I encounter dynamic quality.

I like to think of dynamic quality as creativity. I have learned that creativity requires supportive conditions that provide a sense of grounding – a sanctuary from which I can reach into the unknown. It is static quality (things that were at one time dynamic quality) that provides this sanctuary.

In a way, we al live at the meeting point of static and dynamic quality.  The contents of this meeting are personal – no two people are alike. Yet we are all traveling through life using these fundamental tools.

I feel that so much has been said about this book… and yet most people I mention it too have either not heard about it or only just recall reading it a long time ago. This book was very helpful and inspiring to me. It can be tough reading but that is easy to overcome – simply browse through the parts that you feel are too much for you. I connected with the book and have read it numerous times and each time I am able to dig in deeper in certain parts.

The book is a personal story, a philosophical discussion, about the trap of seeking and about the inevitable yearning to do so. I like it because it inspired me into believing that the trap is there only because of the limitation of the mind and a simple human choice to ignore that limitation. I like it because it is highly reasonable and at the same time highly spiritual – and the two live in harmony side by side. I like it because it does not provide a solution – but it does demonstrate that seeking, regardless of the difficulties it may cause, is a meaningful and worthy path through life – that there probable are not shortcuts.

I carry with me, from the book, the concept of Quality. I have found this to be a clear (though sometimes inexplainable) point of reference for my choices in life and in guiding others. I have found that when I run into religious (and spiritual) contexts, in which I experience resistance, that by simply replacing the concept of “God” with “Quality” I am quickly able to peal away the distractive qualities and experience the core. It is a word with which people like to associate themselves – so it is an excellent tool of communication and bridging.

If you are interested in delving deeper – the book has a sequel called “Lila”: