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

[Heather Perella]

       [SA previously]
  > 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.

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

   
       This was a mistake above.  I meant to type the rock is working with dq.  This goes back to what I said some posts ago.  Sq has effort.  Dq doesn't have effort.  Sq tries to latch upon dq, but can't attach to nothing, so no latch, but a latch between sq patterns does occur upon the return (the return effort from nonattachment upon dq; the sq-latching-dq that cannot occur that I've mentioned before).  This is how I picture coherence.  Sq trying to latch upon dq, but can't latch, but does latch upon another sq pattern, therefore, sq-sq latching, yet, without dq no creativity, no on the edge of experience where possibilities happen.  Possibilities can only happen in reality, and dq is fundamental reality just doesn't have distinctions.
  

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

  --------
       This 'no separations' is possible due to dq where no-thing is present.  Distinctions fall apart.  Separations are void.  Static patterns have enough coherence to hold together as long as the value is strong enough, yet, dq can't notice any of these values, any of these 'holdings together'.  Everything is void.
   
       [David H.]
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 :-).

  --------------
       Our minds can understand dq even if we put dq into static patterns.  I don't see how this putting dq into words makes our words all wrong or even all right.  I think once we get into static patterns we are discussing morals and values.  Ultimately these morals and values would have no meaning, but this doesn't cancel out laws of nature, cultural norms, and intelligent understandings.  Debates, arguments, and judgments happen all the time (time, as in this static quality world).  These morals and values are not invalid, but valued and moral hence their definitions.  This does not mean change is not possible, and dq opens to way for change and creativity.  Once in the static quality world of values and morals right and wrong both exist and we can't escape this.  To discuss and live static quality is to live according to what we've defined dq to be, and what nature has been defined as with all its' trees, birds, etc..., and yes, us human beings might be the only ones
 that can define these trees, but this doesn't ignore that trees are here without human beings as I see it.  To say dq is no-thing, and that's wrong isn't necessarily true.  To put dq into words and with a competent intellect we can understand dq, understand sq.  Just because I think and experience dq doesn't invalidate the static patterns involved in this event. 
   
   
       [David H.]
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."
  ------------------
   
       Sure, and this is what I say about a rock, and how a rock is dq.  You understand what I mean.  This might be dangerous, but life can be dangerous.  As you've said before, you know what I mean, you just said it's dangerous.  To say this is dangerous is not including anything different about our paths in life.  Rock is distinct from tree, but rock is not separate from tree.  All is quality.  Rock is an analogy of ultimate reality.  A sandstone found on the earth is an analogy of ultimate reality.  We know many other analogies exist of ultimate reality.  Even our thoughts are analogies of ultimate reality.  So simply I say rock is dq.  What is this rock!
   
   
  thanks.
   
  snow on the earth,
      sun on the earth,
  foot on the earth,
  blue sky,
  SA
   
   

 
---------------------------------
Any questions?  Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.