[MD] code of art: true self

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello SA,
May i ask you a question please?
How may one distinguish the Dynamic from those who simulate Dynamic for  
static purposes?
>From experience i have observed, 'Simulants' to coin a phrase, have learned  
how to, 'talk the talk' but don't, 'walk the walk' so to speak.
As Gav reminded us recently, writing is rather narcotic - it's own  stimulant 
- but a, 'Simulant' steals and adorns themselves in a low quality  
narcissistic event; this seems diametrically opposed to the code of art.
 
Love,
Mark
 
In a message dated 15/12/2006 20:21:49 GMT Standard Time,  
spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com writes:

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