[MD] Code of Art: true self

[Heather Perella]

     [William]
> Seems a little wordy to me.

     Sure is.

     [William]
> 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)

     Yeah, didn't matter.  It was the meaning, and
those two words where trying to mean something
together, so, I stuck in the -.  But it didn't matter.
 I've never been big on grammer, and the likes.  It
was always the meaning.  I'll use words that aren't in
the dictionary, at times, just to get my point across,
but anyways...

     [William]
> 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??

     Here's the focus.  first split:  is static
quality-dynamic quality:  is code of art:  is dynamic
morality:  is nothing is moral:  is true self
(no-self):  is quality realizing itself.  I've been in
a discussion with Chin on '[MD] Quantum Physics' for
some time now clarifying this discussion.  Realizing
'stuff' along the Way.  I'm just chattin', that's all.


     [William]
> 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.

     I do that, repeat myself, thinking that
emphasizes a point, but your right.  My literary knife
could used sharpened.

     [William]
> 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?

     Na, your right.  But the discussion has headed
into first(?) static latch, which is Nothing is moral
{code of art: true self(no-self)}.  The intellect
realizing this first(?) static latch would realize
'is' = latch, maybe and so this:  Nothing latch moral.
 Moral latch nothing.  How can 'something' latch to
nothing?  It doesn't, so, the latching doesn't get
stuck.  The intellect isn't stuck.  


    [William] 
> I have a gut feeling that expressions about nothing
> should be more
> succinct...

     Succinct, clarify please?  Clarification is all
we do, and I appreciate this wonder we practice.


thanks for responding.

dark, not as cold, hear the mice walking in the attic,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index