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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

>
>      [David H.]
>> sq and DQ are complete opposites, defined as such
>> they push each
>> other away. But they aren't opposites in the
>> traditional exclusive
>> sense, they are opposite qualities. So whilst they
>> are opposite,
>> because they are qualities they work together.
>
>     This I can agree with.  A rock is working together
> with nothing.  The rock and nothing are separate, but
> together in the sense they work together.  I can
> notice dq by looking at a rock. The rock is a static
> pattern, but working with the rock is dq. Separate
> but working together.

Working with the rock isn't DQ. I don't know how many times I have to  
say this but DQ isn't anything.

>
>      [David H.]
>> Right. In my view, this point in which you sit, the
>> one of quality
>> with no metaphysical distinctions, is dangerous
>> because if you talk
>> form this perspective and ignore the distinctions of
>> the MOQ by
>> saying 'sq is DQ' etc., then it is not as sound
>> metaphysically as it
>> could be.
>
>      ok, I agree.  But do you experience/or think
> sitting where no distinctions is an event? Is this
> what you mean below by Quality perspective that can
> notice dq and sq.
>

The best way to communicate this quality perspective is using the  
MOQ.  This is what I was saying below.  If you ignore the  
distinctions of the MOQ, and then talk about the distinctions, you  
aren't going to say anything meaningful.

>
>      [David H.]
>> Actually, I think it's possible to maintain the
>> distinctions of the
>> MOQ while looking from perspective of quality where
>> 'everything is
>> connected' and avoid unnecessary confusion.  This
>> can be done by
>> saying, from the perspective of the MOQ, as a
>> qualitative whole there
>> is no DQ 'in' sq.  I think, according to the MOQ, it
>> is better to say
>> quality is both sq and DQ.  Quality is both sq and
>> DQ to the degree
>> that they both use the word.
>
>      Yes, you say both use the word, but I experience
> no distinctions where I sit.  These distinctions don't
> go away always, but as you say above it is more a
> quality sitting of both sq and dq.  I'm notice static
> patterns, and the distinctions are present, but these
> static patterns are together without any separations.

This 'no separations' is the quality part of static quality. But it's  
still a static quality whole.

It's clear to me anything we say about Dynamic Quality is wrong, even  
what I just said is wrong.  But as best I can say something about it,  
I say Dynamic Quality is no thing.  But that's wrong too :-).

In Lila RMP gets to a point [Chapter 9] where he says, "He [Phaedrus]  
saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what  
it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is." ..  
"Phaedrus's central attention turned away from any further  
explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned towards the static patterns  
themselves."

Cheers,

David.