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

[Ham Priday]

David H., 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.

[SA]:
> 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.

Why not reverse your DQ = nothing, sq = "thing" fixation, and consider DQ as
the primary "essence" that actuates nothingness?  Better yet, forget DQ/sq
entirely.

Look at it this way: A rock is "a particular thing" as opposed to everything
or "no particular thing" because it is separated (delineated) by
nothingness.  It is nothingness that enables us to recognize an object and
its properties as distinguished from, let's say, pure Quality or Value.
Nothingness separates all things in existence.  Thus, if there were no
nothingness, there would be no objects or things.

In a metaphysical sense, Nothingness and Essence do "push each other away,"
as David says.  This "pushing away" creates the S/O divide.  But when we
experience something, we extract its essence (i.e., Value) by penetrating
the divide, "bringing them together", and making a "being aware".  That is
to say, we abstract the thing's value from Essence and experience a
particular being (a rock, for example).  Nothingness gives us the power to
reduce the value of Essence to finite beingness.  Without nothingness there
would be neither subject nor object.

Doesn't this give you a better paradigm for existential reality than "static
and dynamic working together"?  Or than asserting that Pirsig's primary
empirical reality "isn't anything"?   It's obvious to me that what is
primary cannot be nothing, since a thing can't be derived from nothing.  So,
either you have to reverse your definition and make DQ undifferentiated
being and sq its actualized difference, or consider my hypothesis.  Simply
speaking, I view differentiated experience as a reduced perspective of an
undifferentiated source.  Nothingness can arise from an undifferentiated
source, but a thing can't arise from nothing.

For your consideration,
Ham