[MD] Code of Art: true self: principles?

[William Robinson]

Seems a little wordy to me.  But on the other hand I have never tried to
write a paper about nothing myself. Seems like it would be quite a
challenge. I noticed about 4 places were "Open endedness " could use a space
inserted. (being two words, not just one word) Seems to me the piece could
benefit from a tighter focus and a little re-organization.  But it is a
worthy first draft.
I still can't determine where you are going or what is the purpose. In what
line does the key thought occur, which you are developing in the rest of the
Piece??  But what do I know? Maybe I should concentrate more and read it a
little more carefully. Keep up with the redrafting. I'm trying to encourage
you to sharpen your literary knife a little bit more. Seems like you repeat
some things in the last third that were covered in the first third.
Concentrate on breaking the key thoughts into paragraphs .  You use the word
firmed several times.  Would the word affirmed work? ... Or  am I just
missing something important?


I have a gut feeling that expressions about nothing should be more
succinct...

Good Luck!
Robbie



On 12/6/06, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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/
>