[MD] code of art: true self

[Heather Perella]

     [Mark]
> May i ask you a question please?

     ok

     [Mark]
> How may one distinguish the Dynamic from those who
> simulate Dynamic for  
> static purposes?


     Can't simulate dynamic.  For instance, I am
talking about dynamic, thus, putting dynamic into a
static pattern, yet, how could I put nothing into a
word, but I did.  I spelled it d-y-n-a-m-i-c. 
Therefore to understand dynamic is not only to notice
this spelling word, but to understand nothing can't be
worded.  


     [Mark]
> >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.

     I have the faintest idea of what your talking
about here.  Therefore, I'm responding to you in an
effort to mirror what your saying above using
different words, just to see if I understand you. 
Simulant is not walking the walk, thus, not being true
self, in other words, not using code of art in a
non-diametrically opposed way.  Ok, so don't be a
simulant.  Don't deceive, since from your experience
this is oppositional from code of art.  To deceive
seems to be a stuckness that is fleeting.  A
stuckness, a habit, that throws somebody off course. 
Yet, all I'm doing is defining simulant here, so, I'm
not saying anything you don't know about from
experience that you've observed, as you state above.  
 


dark, baby snoring,
SA

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