[MD] code of art: true self

[Heather Perella]

> Hi all,
> 
> 
>      The first split of quality is the sq and dq
> split.  The first decision, thus moral judgment, is
> sq
> and/or dq.  Is it simply quality?  Or are we sqing
> or
> dqing?  To dq we sq, yet, to practice (key
> understanding) dq is not sqing.  All will be static
> quality in conversation, unless, we are practicing
> dynamic quality.  Thus, code of art:  dynamic
> morality, aka, Nothing is moral.  In this statement,
> it is all static quality, except in practice.  In
> practice it is nothing, nothing at all, that is
> moral.
>  This nothing is given 'being' and is firmed as
> moral.
>  Also, this nothing is 'non-being' and therefore
> moral
> is mute.  So, nothing is moral.  This is
> not-defining
> what moral is, yet, clearly moral is firmed as
> existing, and thus, definable:  Moral is.  Also,
> nothing is 'being' and 'non-being':  Nothing is. 
> Yet,
> what is nothing?  This is the openness of nothing,
> of
> dynamic quality.  Therefore, from the first split of
> quality, moral is firmed, yet, applied as openended,
> dq (nothing).  This must be practiced.  It is one
> 'thing' for me to talk about nothing, but if you
> focus
> only my talking about nothing, and state, well,
> you're
> talking about nothing is not possible, due to my
> talking, is (1) not to realize what nothing is
> yourself, and (2) this takes practice.  This takes
> practice, for on the one hand, it is true that to
> simple talk about nothing is not fulfilling what
> nothing is.  On the other hand, to realize, which is
> to practice nothing on your own, is to experience
> nothing, and thus, realize nothing even while I
> talk.
>      This nothing is moral is kin to original mind
> or
> original nature in Zen.  Buddhism may use
> words/scriptures, but Zen realizes that true
> realization is practiced.  Thus, moral exists, but
> the
> true moral is experienced in this nothing.  When I
> say
> nothing, I'm talking about this openendedness.  I
> saying moral is, but what that moral is, well, fill
> in
> the blank - yourself.  This is the true self.  We
> are
> filling in the blank.
>      On this principle 'thing'.  I would say we are
> to
> practice, which is to realize quality on our own. 
> We
> are helped by others.  We are hurt by others.  Yet,
> for quality to truly mean 'anything', quality must
> be
> realized on our own or else it is an emptiness that
> is
> unsatisfied.  This kind of emptiness is different
> from
> openendedness.  Openendedness is realized, firmed,
> and
> a fulfilling experience that is known and felt.  An
> emptiness that is unsatisfied is full of questions
> that are confusing, distracting, and craving occurs.
> 
> As to principle, I would say the first principle is
> code of art.  This is the first split quality goes
> through.  Could quality be first principle?  Sure,
> after the split, after we, on our own, fill in the
> blank.  Thus, the first principle is static, but
> when
> experienced, and put into practice, it is quality,
> thus, includes dq.  Therefore code of art is not
> really a code, it is creative, also.  It is dynamic
> morality.  Code of art is 'nothing is moral'.  And
> now
> that is what we are doing from the beginning, as in
> original mind, or original nature that is Zen.  Code
> of art is practiced and realizing is practicing, as
> so
> is walking.  
>      The true self is living this principle, that is
> not a principle, until lived.  To live this true
> self
> is to fill in the blank, but to realize this will
> always be openended.  Art of Code will always be
> Nothing is moral, yet,  the firm static patterns are
> filling in the blank, as, Nothing is being defined.
>      When I said above as follows:  "Could quality
> be
> first principle?  Sure, after the split, after we,
> on
> our own, fill in the blank.  Thus, the first
> principle
> is static, but when experienced, and put into
> practice, it is quality, thus, includes dq."
>      When I say this, this is also stating what
> Pirsig
> said concerning ZMM is the path to enlightenment,
> and
> Lila is the return home.  The first principle is
> quality.  Yet, this is realized when quality is
> 'split'.  The 'split' is code of art (found in
> Lila). 
> This realizing, due to the 'split', is static
> quality
> that is looking back on itself and this 'itself' is
> dynamic quality.  Static quality and dynamic quality
> see each other, as this 'split' is the seeing (the
> realizing) as themselves which 'themselves' is
> quality.    This path I just explained is quality
> 'then' this code of art, which this code of art is
> the
> 'eye' of quality, is an event, a realization, a
> practice, a 'split'.  This is how quality realizes
> itself, and human beings are the only ones that are
> able to experience this realization of quality.
>      Thus, quality is first principle, but this is
> the
> quality that is on the path of enlightenment and
> returned home, thus, 'split', and 'got' eyes,
> realized, practiced itself.
> 
>      Any thoughts, agreements, disagreements, 
> 'anything'...
> 
> woods,
> SA  
> 
> P.S.  Whoever made it this far in the reading,
> thanks,
> and for those that didn't, thanks, and if I get no
> responses, thanks, for 'does any of this matter
> anyway' is overcoming me and I'm able to just be
> quiet now.
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
> beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com