[MD] Formalising the Code of Art (Rekindling with Mark Maxwell)

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

As vowed, if you don't mind I've responded to your comments from two  
months ago.

To remove the clutter, I've taken all your comments from the 16-10-06  
and responded where necessary.


==PATTERNISING DQ==

Mark 16-10-06: But if COA = DM = DQ that is precisely what you are  
doing, unless as you suggest, it's the conditions we're spelling  out.

David 19-12-06:
I wasn't sure what you meant exactly by 'conditions' but you spelled  
it out for me later on.

Mark 16-10-06: Conditions = sq description of circumstances where DQ  
has been observed to operate.
I totally agree DQ is pure empiricism, but a formalised anything is  
dealing  with sq. See?

David 19-12-06:
DQ is not pure empiricism. The MOQ is pure empricism. To be precise,  
a formalised anything is *dealing with* Quality, both DQ and static  
quality.  When *something is* formalised it becomes sq, which is good  
as it is at pointing to DQ.

Mark 16-10-06: I am certain DQ is pure empiricism. That DQ appears  
where it  does is a reflection upon our static understanding.

David 19-12-06:
That DQ appears where it does has nothing to do with our static  
understanding.   Once you take notice of DQ, DQ becomes sq, so DQ did  
not appear!  We can only hope to allude to DQ and its existence  
through analogy and the like.  As I said above, the better these  
analogies, the better the sq.


==BENEFITS OF COHERENCE==

Mark 16-10-06: That's why Coherence is more sq. But it may be a  
appreciable addition to our sq understanding?

David 19-12-06:
To put your question another way.  Does Coherence IMHO point to the  
moon well? No. This is because within Lila and the structure of the  
MOQ there is already a concept which fits your desired goal of  
'formulating a sq description where DQ shines through'.  IMHO Rta  
answers this call of being an excellent finger pointer, because if  
done rightly, removes the finger altogether.

In case you have forgotten, below is a paste of a comment of mine  
from the 15-10-06 regarding rta.

"Of course, that is not to say there there won't be times when we  
cannot see DQ.  Zen meditation or something of this ilk helps to  
reduce these times through perfection of sq patterns(rta) which  
reveals the DQ that has been there all along."

A perfected pattern is coherent. If you want to contrive a situation  
where there is nothing but DQ, simply perfect a sq pattern.  The  
easiest and most simple activity to perfect is to 'just sit'.  Don't  
DO anything, just sit.  If you sit there for long enough, you will  
notice your mind winding down, and eventually once it has wound down  
completely all that is left is 'just sitting'. It is at this point  
enlightenment occurs.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: Thanks for not attributing to be an evil. ;) Coherence  
is sq  alright which gets me out of trouble.
I'm still not happy about your notion that conditions are always  
right for  Dynamic morality.
Upon reflection, that is to say, upon reviewing our experience  
history, DQ  may be seen to be more present under certain   
circumstances.

David 19-12-06:
That is because the sq, the analogies of DQ, are better. DQ is always  
present.  Thus the conditions for Dynamic morality are always  
present.  There is no *more* DQ.  DQ is not an amount! The 'more' you  
seem to be referring to is sq.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: The Lila quote above insists this is so. Here's an   
interesting quote from ch. 2 of Lila:
'Some of the slips were actually about this topic: random access  and  
Quality.  The two are closely related.  Random access is at the   
essence of organic growth, in which cells, like post-office boxes,  
are  relatively
independent.  Cities are based on random access.   Democracies are  
founded on it.  The free market system, free speech, and  the growth  
of science are all based on it.  A library is one of  civilization's  
most powerful tools
precisely because of its card-catalog  trays.'
A Library has a sq aspect and a Dynamic function, and so too have the  
other  examples given by Pirsig in this quote.
I ask you consider this carefully.

David 19-12-06:
I have, and I agree with RMP.  And that is why I responded.

"That resulting sq patterns are more Dynamic, versatile than  others  
I don't deny.  That these patterns work with some of the more  static  
patterns which prevent degeneration I'll also agree on, as does RMP  
in  the paragraph you quoted above."

-------

Mark 16-10-06: I think some have been observed and have even entired  
common
language. That's what the sweet spot thing is all  about.

David 19-12-06:
No fundamental conditions have been observed.  You could say they  
were observed, but always After the fact, thus they are not so  
fundamental.  The only thing which is fundamental is DQ but it is not  
a thing at all.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: Yes, it seems we've got to the bottom of this. The  
conditions are observed AFTER DQ.
The conditions are sq. This does not invalidate Coherence i feel.

David 19-12-06:
I don't think it 'invalidates' Coherence either.  But coherence is  
more sq.  Is it good? I don't think that it offers anything already  
in the MOQ.  Coherence as a 'grand concept of the MOQ' confuses  
matters as I have said already.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: This is what i am attributing to you. It sounds   
contradictory to state DM is always followed but sometimes it turns  
out to be a  complete Hash.

I think it's better to observe the conditions which have shown DQ to  
shine and then formulate a sq description.  I feel the Edge of Chaos  
description takes into account all that is said in Lila about sq  
structure and Dynamic function.

David 19-12-06:
Once you notice something 'turns out to be complete Hash'.  You are  
no longer talking about DQ!

IMHO the best description that I know of, about contriving conditions  
for 'DQ to shine through' is in Lila when RMP discusses rta. For example

"We don't perform religious rituals because we believe in God. We  
believe in God because we perform religious rituals." Lila - ch30

-------

Mark 16-10-06: No, Chaos and Stasis are not requirements. This is  
what  happens to sq when DQ is being blocked.
The requirement for DQ is coherence.
Meditation increases coherence. As Coherence becomes ever more  
unifying DQ shines.

David 19-12-06:
The requirement for DQ is that there is no requirement. As I'm  
repeatedly stating, if you want a signpost to DQ there is only rta 
(Meditation), which is no requirement at all.  As patterns become  
more perfected and coherent through rta, DQ shines.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: This is no reoccuring allot so it seems we've hit the  
source of a solution.
DQ is pure empiricism.
Coherence is a sq observation.
The thing is, once we have observed the circumstances under which DQ   
shines, we can try to arrange them again. And this is precisely how  
we  learn!
We observe what works and then do it again.
In this sense, DQ draws us foreward.

David 19-12-06:
I still think that the concept of rta using MOQ language as described  
by RMP in Lila explains this better.

-------

Mark 16-10-06: I will dig out by bow.
Mark 16-10-06: That's exactly what was observed in many examples,  
including Zen arts, of the sweet spot.
In fact, i said in Liverpool 2005 that i was using the MoQ itself to  
describe Zen arts.
If you feel this is bad karma what the fuck are YOU formalising a  
Code  of Art for?
Don't start with that Dan shit David.

David 19-12-06:
Yes, ultimately it is karma. Like all static quality. But, try and  
live a life sans karma! We can't, so I just try to define as best I  
can.  We're both aiming for the same thing.  What is bad karma  
however, is a low quality description (Or one not as high as it could  
be).

-------

Mark 16-10-06: Ritual is mentioned a great deal in the Edge of  Chaos.
Mark 16-10-06: I think what you have in your writing is Rta (Quality)  
and
rta (sq).

David 19-12-06:
So a capital letter makes a complete difference in definition? This  
is not my understanding of rta which is expounded all through this post.

Cheers,

David.