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

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> >   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

     [David H.]
> 'the return effort from nonattachment upon DQ'?
> DQ is not effort, when you talk of 'effort' you are
> talking of attachment to static patterns.

     Yes exactly, but it is a renewal, a creative
effort when sq tries to attach to dq and can't so
returns upon another sq pattern, the sq-sq coherence.

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

     [David H.]
> Sq can't latch DQ? Are you sure?

     This is the creativity that I'm trying to convey.
 Yes, I'm sure sq can't latch dq due to a latch must
be upon something.  We can't latch dq for there is
nothing to latch.  Once we notice any latch, during
creativity, then the latch is within the scope static
patterns for we will notice something.  This is akin
to neutral genes, to use an example.  Neutral genes
are not within the scope of selectivity or processes
of evolution.  These known genes discussed in science
remain neutral until they are within the scope of
where evolution works.  When these genes are doing
something and are involved in the bodies processes
they are no longer neutral and evolution may work upon
them positively or negatively.  Dq is not within
scope, any current static pattern scope.  Yet, once
within a static pattern scope, dq is no longer true
dq, but is a static pattern. 

     [David H.]
> How can sq not latch DQ? Or to ask  
> the question another way, your sure something cannot
> come from nothing?  

     Well, dq is the source of all 'things'.  So the
sq-latching-dq is a nonlatch, yet, upon the return,
during this creative process, where sq will latch we
find coherence, sq-sq, in other words, sq-latching-sq.
 This return is the integrity of static patterns. 
Static patterns do not leave themselves, but do
change.  Renewal processes happen.

     [David H.]
> 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.

     Yes.


     [David H.]
> RMP never talked of this sq-sq latching you
> describe.  Do you recognise that you are unique on
this point?

     I thought RMP talked about static latching. 
Didn't Mark also mention sq-sq?


     [SA previously]
> ...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.]
> Some thing with no distinctions is static quality.

     I'm saying nothing has no distinctions.  Nothing
has nothing.  

     [SA previously]
>   Our minds can understand dq even if we put
> dq into static patterns.

      [David H.] 
> Your mind can understand DQ? Mine can't.

      I agree.  What I'm saying is that when we use
analogies to point at dq, we understand that where
talking about something that is not a static pattern.

     [SA previously] 
> Ultimately these morals and values would have no 
meaning, but this > doesn't cancel out laws of nature,
cultural norms, and intelligent
> understandings.

     [David H.] 
> Morals and values ultimately have no meaning?  I
disagree.

     This is the difficult aspect of dq.  Since dq is
ultimately nothing, yet, I know Pirsig puts dq as the
highest moral value, then this goes back to the code
of art.  Dynamic morality.  Nothing moral.  Yet, this
leads into exactly what I mean by dq is a rock.  We
could look at nothing moral in the negative sense, as
in nothing is moral, thus has no morals.  Or we could
look at nothing moral in the positive sense, as in
nothing is moral, thus nothing has moral(s).  We could
look at 'dq is a rock' in this same negative and
positive sense.  We may notice nothing is a rock in a
negative sense, as in nothing is rock, thus nothing is
not a rock.  Or we may notice nothing is a rock in a
positive sense, as in nothing is rock, thus rock
remains free, nothing is it, only rock it is.  

     [SA previously]
> To say dq is no-thing, and that's wrong isn't
necessarily true.

     [David H.] 
> You mean I was wrong about DQ? ;-)

     I mean to say, as in put dq into words isn't a
wrong thing to do.  Sure it makes dq a static pattern,
but dq is still left unto itself (no-self), meaning,
even though we put dq into a static pattern, dq, the
true dq is still left untouched.

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

     [David H.] 
> There is no such thing as 'worded DQ'.  DQ is
> nothing.  'Worded DQ' is static quality not DQ.

      yes, and we say dq.  I think dharma, outlined in
Lila will help us out here.   Notice these certain
quotes found in the larger passage found below:

-     "Dharma is Quality itself.."  
-     "...dharma includes both static and Dynamic
Quality without contradiction."  
-     "There in the center of the most monotonous
boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic
freedom is found."
-     "The danger has always been that the rituals,
the static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely
represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic
Quality they were originally intended to preserve."

     Here is the larger passage in fuller context as
follows and I round up this post with some comments:

     (Lila; Chapter 30)
"Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is
the basis of all order. It equals righteousness. It is
the ethical code. It is the stable condition which
gives man perfect satisfaction.
Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is
arbitrarily imposed by others. It is not any
artificial set of conventions which can be amended or
repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty
which is arbitrarily decided by one's own conscience.
Dharma is beyond all questions of what is internal and
what is external. Dharma is Quality itself, the
principle of 'lightness' which gives structure and
purpose to the evolution of all life and to the
evolving understanding of the universe which life has
created."

(AND THEN CONTINUING A LITTLE FURTHER IN THE SAME
CHAPTER AS FOLLOWS)
 
"Phaedrus thought it was because dharma includes both
static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction.
For example, you would guess from the literature on
Zen and its insistence on discovering the 'unwritten
dharma' that it would be intensely anti-ritualistic,
since ritual is the 'written dharma.' But that isn't
the case. The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one
ritual after another, hour after hour, day after day,
all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those
static patterns to discover the unwritten dharma. They
want him to get those patterns perfect!
The explanation for this contradiction is the belief
that you do not free yourself from static patterns by
fighting them with other contrary static patterns.
That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.'
You free yourself from static patterns by putting them
to sleep. That is, you master them with such
proficiency that they become an unconscious part of
your nature. You get so used to them you completely
forget them and they are gone. There in the center of
the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic
patterns the Dynamic freedom is found.
Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic
religion as long as the rituals are seen as merely a
static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post which
allows socially pattern-dominated people to see
Dynamic Quality. The danger has always been that the
rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what
they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the
Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to
preserve."


     We may look at dq-sq contradiction by discussing
it as dharma.  First off, as you mentioned how
dangerous this can be, I quoted above the danger in
thinking sq patterns are dq, not just signposts or
representations.  Also, from what I discussed further
up in this post, about positive and negative sense in
noticing dq is moral and dq is rock.  I am focusing
upon the positive sense that I mentioned above.  
     [Keep in mind, this positive and negative doesn't
mean good and bad respectively.  It is more in how
nothing is used with the static pattern (moral and
rock).  Nothing is not moral and not rock, or Nothing
is moral and is rock.]
     When I say dq is rock, I'm letting rock be what
it is.  I am freeing rock from other static patterns. 
As quoted above, 
     "The explanation for this contradiction is the
belief that you do not free yourself from static
patterns by fighting them with other contrary static
patterns."
     Therefore, I free a rock from not only other
static patterns, but all static patterns.  How can
dharma happen?  How can a rock, a static pattern, be
freed of static patterns.  I've said all is quality,
but this may not be enough.  As said above, dharma is
sq and dq without contradiction.  Also as said above,
dq is in the center of the most monotonous, boring
static ritual (pattern).  To stare at a cave wall, as
Bodhidharma did, and be enlightened to Void.  To stare
at a rock and not allow the rock to become static is
the same as to ask 'What is a rock?' and never answer
this question.  Sure, I'm involved in this experience
(as Dogen would point out as well), but once I don't
lock any static patterns even upon a rock, I stare and
share with this rock an experience that I have no idea
about.  I experience this rock in a way that is void. 
I have no idea what this rock is.  The rock is free to
be what this rock is, but what that is, is an
experience of a rock without any static patterns.  I
could feel the rock and feel the texture, study the
rock scientifically, and still yet, this rock will be
free, free to be a rock, free from any static
patterns.  Though, this overlaying of static patterns
may make it difficult to see passed these static
patterns at the center of this rock where dq is found,
but it definitely is possible.  It is the same as how
I experience dq, and this experience is free from any
static patterns.  Yet, I am a static pattern through
and through.  This is what I've mentioned before, the
no-self, the egoless self, not confined (in other
words, nonattachment) to this ego (static pattern) of
me, but experiencing an event called zen, called
dharma, called rock (in the positive sense of dq is
rock, as in dq is moral), called quality.  


thanks.

now that was a cold night, and still the fire I had
late afternoon into evening in the yard was still
smoking this morning,
SA



 

     


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367