[MD] code of art: true self

[Heather Perella]

Arlo, Craig, Chin, Case, Ian (are mentioned), and
hello everybody else.



> [ARLO] 
> > Now, I could say that it is "from where" a belief
> originates that differentiates
> > its placement. Thus, a belief informed by
> "authority" is a social pattern. A
> > belief informed by "science" is intellectual. But
> then I'd have to conclude
> > that my belief in astrophysics is social, because
> it rests on authority.

     [Craig] 
> Don't give up this line of thought yet.  It is true
> that your personal belief/disbelief in astrophysics
> may be based on authority.  But ultimately for
> society & the scientific community, it is based on
> experiments following the scientific method. 
> Otherwise you fall into the creationist trap that
> Stephen Hawking says one thing & Moses/the Bible
> says the opposite, so they're both equally likely
> right.


     Craig, you trigger something in my mind.  I was
thinking about what Arlo said, and this yet unknown
distinction between intellectual and social level is
an enigma.  Then you mentioned how this line of
thought leads to science: scientific method (I'm
stayin' out of the Moses/bible talk).  Chin recently
posted Pirsig's discussion on scientific method and
hypothesis.  This lead into societies apparent chaos,
freedom, or quicker pace.  The more scientific method
is used, the more hypothesis, and thus, the more
freeing-up or chaos.
     Keeping this in mind, society will eventually
incorporate intellectuality.  Throughout time, this
happens over and over again.  Unless, as Pirsig has
pointed out, knowledge is just for knowledges sake,
which Pirsig deems as less moral than knowledge that
is incorporated and helpful for society.  So, here's
the blurring.  Intellectuality will be found in
society, as long as, society accepts this originally
intellectual event.
     Now the code of art.  As I am speculating, code
of art in 'original' (Zen's understanding of original,
as in beginners-mind, etc...) event is moral latching
upon nothing, yet, due to the apparent nature of this
latch, stuckness is avoided.  Also yet, moral is
static quality.  This 'original' split: code of art:
static quality and dynamic quality, holds its'
distinction.  Pirsig explains the rest in terms of
evolution.  Evolution is pigeon-holing, thus, value as
an attractor (to use a term Case brings up from chaos
theory) is a choice event of this lasting distinction
between sq and dq.  This 'original' event: code of art
is also what I speculate as 'original' intellectual
latch.  All the levels incorporate the code of art,
so, when speaking upon the intellectual level it would
be relevant to call this 'original' event upon this
level, 'original' intellectual latch.  Using the moral
levels, as Pirsig outlines, moral codification, thus,
distinction with the levels is dharma, an ethical
code, thus, moral code.  Dharma is quality.  Dharma is
dynamic and static quality.  (Lila; Ch. 30)  To delve
in moral codes is to delve between the levels.  Yet,
as Ian pointed out recently in his example of blood
cell and human beings walking the street both
'thinking' they are the end-point or higher order of
evolutions 'progress' is false.  Here is what Pirsig
points out on this topic as well as follows:

"That was the thing that this evolutionary morality
brought out clearer than anything else. Intellect is
not an extension of society any more than society is
an extension of biology. Intellect is going its own
way, and in doing so is at war with society, seeking
to subjugate society, to put society under lock and
key. An evolutionary morality says it is moral for
intellect to do so, but it also contains a warning:
just as a society that weakens its people's physical
health endangers its own stability, so does an
intellectual pattern that weakens and destroys the
health of its social base also endanger its own
stability."  (Lila; Ch. 13)

     The levels are going their own way.  "Intellect
is not an extension of society..." etc...  Moral codes
are "battles" and "struggles", as Pirsig describes
them.  As I said earlier though, Pirsig points out, a
more moral intellectual event is one that helps
society, rather than just the gaining of knowledge for
knowledges' sake.
     Back to 'original'-intellectual-latch:  nothing
is moral:  code of art.  The levels are distinct and
are so due to moral codes.  Yet, what is once
intellectual is to be helpful and incorporated into
societal level.  A 'jump' occurs and the line of
thinking Chin, Arlo, and Craig are upon is basing the
intellectual event upon where it originated, yet, this
intellectual event does become incorporated by
society, if helpful, and the blur I was discussing. 
The societal value was once intellectual, but is now
societal.  The MoQ is a social value by 'MoQers'. 
Yet, it is known as being intellectual, too.  Where
did the distinction go?  My answer to this question
puts the emphasis upon latch.  In other words,
a-measure-of-stuckness, which if I'm correct, is the
same as saying a-measure-of-staticness.  Stuckness or
staticness is measured by the levels.  The higher
moral levels are more dynamic than the previous
levels, and the best 'code' is dynamic-static as I
quote:

"The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just
two codes of morals, there are actually five:
inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic,
social-biological, intellectual-social, and
Dynamic-static. This last, the Dynamic-static code,
says what's good in life isn't defined by society or
intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from
domination by any static pattern, but that freedom
doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the
patterns themselves."  (Lila; Ch. 24)

     The more-stuck would be the same, maybe, as
saying the more-static.  Thus, as an intellectual
latch occurs, the more stuck this latch is, the more
static, and eventually may be Incorporated into the
social level.  I am not suggesting the direction of
evolution is from dynamic to intellectual to social to
biological, etc...  What I am just pointing out is the
apparent movement of some intellectual events into the
social level measured by stuckness or latching.  Code
of art occurs with all levels, but this cross-over of
events between levels, somewhere in the
social-intellectual moral code amidst the struggle
might be understood by stuckness.  
     How this is to be measured, especially if a
society is an MoQ society or Zen society, as examples.
 For the stuckness, as Pirsig points out, for a Zen
society is very high.  The rituals are very static,
yet, this strong stuckness in rituals intensifies
dynamic quality, as long as, the Zen practitioners
stay true to Zen.  Inorganic level events are very,
very stuck as well.  They've been involved with their
same stuck event, such as gravity, for a very, very,
very long time.  This also might be due to the code of
art: 'original' split where static quality and dynamic
quality are strictly distinct.  The more stuck any
level is, the more dynamic quality is intensified. 
The distinctions are not lost, in fact, not blurred,
as if they are not to be blurred due to code of art:
'original' split.
     Yet, how is this apparent stuckness that is
intensified upon each level, to use the train of
thought from the last paragraph, going to be true
self: code of art, which is a latch that cannot stick
(be stuck) to dynamic quality as stated 'nothing latch
moral'.  Well, moral is very stuck, very static. 
Nothing is dynamic:  nonstuckness (this does not mean
not stuck or stuck, it means mu).  So, moral latching
upon nothing intensely would allow for staticness to
be stronger and stronger in intensity, thus,
stuckness, due to the distinctions are to remain as
'original' split is to remain.  So moral effort
latching upon nothing, trying to incorporate nothing
will intensify nothing, and as the example of Zen
monks involved in very ritualistic practices still
intensifies dynamic quality.
     After all of this, what of the
intellectual-social distinction?  I would say social
level events will appear more stuck than an
intellectual level event.  What of social level events
that are apparently newly incorporated from the
intellectual level, such as MoQ-discuss website where
new ideas might quickly be dispersed amongst the
participants here or Zen monasteries for the same
reason?  The measure of stuckness would be as
Einsteins theory of relativity.  Thus, it depends upon
perspective and where one is at in perspective.  A
community (full of individuals) of practitioners of
Zen, for instance, will measure the stuckness
differently than those outside of that community. 
Also, inside of Zen community, practitioners will vary
upon stuckness.  New practitioners may look upon Zen
masters as very, very dynamic, due to how much
intellect they are sharing with their students.  Yet,
to the Zen master the intellect they are sharing with
their students is old news, very static, actually
becoming more stuck, one might say, for wisdom is
understood to last, to be ancient, and become ancient.

     I'm going to stop here.  I know this was very,
very long.  Yet, this intellectual-social level
discussion needs clarity, as everybody admits, and
therefore if we already knew what the distinctions
are, then I would probably not mention much.  Of
course, this is my way, so, I apologize but
congratulate anybody that read all of this.
     In summary, nothing is moral:  nothing latch
moral:  intensity of latching is a static event, thus,
an increase in intensity, staticness, stuckness
enhances the distinctions of dynamic-static split:
code of art:  true self.

     Does this make sense?  Any thoughts?


wind blowin' for days now,
SA            

P.S.  Would this post be better suited for MoQ Focus? 
I haven't clicked into that site, so, not sure if
anybody is using it. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com