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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

>
>        [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.

Yes.

>   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 return effort from nonattachment upon DQ'?

DQ is not effort, when you talk of 'effort' you are talking of  
attachment to static patterns.

> ; the sq-latching-dq that cannot occur that I've mentioned before).

Sq can't latch DQ? Are you sure?  How can sq not latch DQ? Or to ask  
the question another way, your sure something cannot come from  
nothing?  But then you might ask, well then how can something come  
from nothing? Where does this 'thing' come from? What is Dynamic  
Quality?

All these questions go unanswered.  They have no answer.  If you  
answer them you loose your own quality.

> 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

RMP never talked of this sq-sq latching you describe.  Do you  
recognise that you are unique on this point?

As I have said, I think that sq is a latch. That is what it is. It  
latches.  Sq is something, a latch. DQ is nothing. What's the conundrum?

> , 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.
>

Some thing with no distinctions is static quality.

>
>      [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.

Your mind can understand DQ? Mine can't.

> 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.

Morals and values ultimately have no meaning? I disagree.

> 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.

Yes.

> 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,

Yes.

> 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.

You mean I was wrong about DQ? ;-)

> To put dq into words and with a competent intellect we can  
> understand dq, understand sq.

There is no such thing as 'worded DQ'.  DQ is nothing.  'Worded DQ'  
is static quality not DQ.

> Just because I think and experience dq doesn't invalidate the  
> static patterns involved in this event.

I agree it doesn't invalidate static patterns.  I think static  
patterns are quality.

>
>
>        [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.

I agree.  They are both static qualities and fundamentally composed  
of a shared static quality as opposed to distinct quantities that  
people who ardently use SOM would argue.

>   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.

So I say an analogy of fundamental reality, in this case a rock, is  
sq.  Static quality points to DQ to be sure, but it is not DQ.

> What is this rock!
>

static quality.

>
>   thanks.
>
>   snow on the earth,
>       sun on the earth,
>   foot on the earth,
>   blue sky,
>   SA
>

Cheers SA,

David.