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

[Heather Perella]

Hey Ham,

> [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.

     [Ham]
> 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.

     You see I have difficulty with nothingness
separating.  I do see nothingness 'not separating',
but particular things do have distinction.  Thus,
particular things, such as a rock, are distinct from a
tree, but not separated.  I see nothingness as not
some kind of gap, but actually a non-presence, thus,
nothing separates particular distinct things.  I see
separation and distinction as different concepts.

     [Ham]
> 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.

     I can see how nothingness is between
objects/things/thoughts, and this somehow delineates
or is involved in their distinctions, but I also see
how nothingness does not separate them.  They are
separated by nothing.  How nothing separates rocks and
trees, and still rocks and trees are distinct is
beyond my intelligence.  I am content with suchness,
is-ness, or in other words, rocks and trees are
distinct because it is this way.  They are not
separated for I don't notice gaps and pitfalls between
things.  Paths are between things.  The wind touches
all upon the earth.  The sun is in touch with the
earth.  The idea of an ecosystem is built upon a
natural connection.    

     [Ham]
> 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.

     Nothingness has been the ultimate reality versus
Essence in some circles of thought due to the
egolessness of nothingness where essence has more of
the potential to be some ultimate defining of reality,
but by nothingness ultimate reality is free from the
reins of potential hardening of defining reality. 
I've gone the Way of Nothingness in 'being something',
but this 'something' is not totally defined, has the
potential of anything, is still creative, and new
'things' are possible.  Life, from my experience, has
never been intellectually defined, and living is
always full of indeterminancies and risk.  Sure
definition is faint, paths are carved, but what
ultimately is can be a full life's story, and even at
death, I don't think the story of life just quits. 
Nothingness, even though you ignore this, doesn't mean
no intelligence, no meaning, no order, and does have
freedom.  Nothingness is a tree, but ultimately what a
tree is could be thought about forever, books and
poems, paintings, sculptures can be made, but a tree
will never be totally captured.

     [Ham]
> 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.

     This is why I say a rock is ultimate reality.  A
rock is dq.  A rock can't be fully defined, but does
have definition.  
     I don't like the idea that ultimate reality is
nothing as opposed to something.  That, to me, is
taking nothing in the wrong way.  I like the old koan
that goes like this as follows:
     
     A mountain is a mountain, and a river is a river.
     A mountain is not a mountain, and a river is not
a river.
     A mountain is a mountain, and a river is a river.

     The first sentence is static without dq.  The
second is all dq, total negation.  These are steps in
an experience.  The third sentence is realizing the
first sentence after experiencing the second sentence.
 In other words, the second sentence is in the back of
the mind, a felt experience, a known experience, an
experience one has while experiencing the first
sentence.  It is ridding the ego of mountain, and
river, and finding out this egoless mountain has been
here all along.  This is why I say an ordinary rock is
dynamic quality, but this understanding can not be
understood in the first sentence.  Must be understood
in the third sentence.


     [Ham]
> 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.

     I don't think a thing arising from nothing.  I
don't believe in a beginning.  There is no arising.  I
believe in a G-d, and you know this about me.  This is
an experience of mine, and one I've been content with.
 I believe I understand this as other people have
throughout time.  I like the intimacy in breathing,
walking, eating, drinking tea, and the edge of
experience (dq moment) these seemingly ordinary events
might be if viewed as the first sentence from the
above koan, but I'm experiencing, I think, as the
third sentence.  The only problem about what I think
I'm experiencing is I don't think I've had valid
approval from somebody that can be considered a
Master.  So, I'm a rogue Zen practitioner, wandering
in an experience of maybe. 


thanks Ham.


flurries, put more dried corn out for the deer, and
more seed for the birds, its' gettin' very, very cold
now,
SA    


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail