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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

>
>      [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.

Since when did a latch have to be upon something?

 From the dictionary.

ORIGIN : læccan - Old English 'to seize'.

The definition is not 'to seize something'.  It is simply 'to seize'.  
Sq is seizing.  What does it seize?

> 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.

Yes that's right.  Any latching made is static quality.


>   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.

Right. However I only ever talk of one type of DQ and that is true DQ.

>
>      [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,

I have said above and before sq-*latching*-dq is a latch.

Which is better a paragraph, or a sentence which says the same thing  
in a simpler, more elegant way?  I'll take the sentence every time.

> 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.

You think sq 'returns' from somewhere? Where does it return from?


> Static patterns do not leave themselves, but do
> change.  Renewal processes happen.

Yes, they change, without Dynamic Quality they do not. But Dynamic  
Quality is not change.

>
>      [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?

As far as I know Mark and RMP never mentioned this sq-sq latching you  
talk of with 'returns' etc.

>
>
>      [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.

Saying nothing *has* no distinctions is describing something.  Saying  
nothing *has* nothing is still describing something. Dynamic Quality  
isn't anything.

>
>      [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.

Yes, but the words we use and the analogies themselves are static  
quality.

>
>      [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.

Yes your right, Dynamic Quality should not be confused with nihilism.

> 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.

I don't think the MOQ should be confused with a mystical outlook that  
says "it doesn't matter what we say about DQ such as 'DQ is a rock',  
ultimately the words we use are merely descriptions of reality and  
not reality itself".

The reply to this I think is that; anything you say about DQ is sq.   
So inherently, in the structure of the MOQ, you never get it right.   
To deny this is to doctrinally avoid degeneracy. Or as RMP puts it in  
Lila p74:

"But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless,  
doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort.   
That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of.  Purity, identified,  
ceases to be purity.  Objections to pollution are a form of  
pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of  
the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet  
been born-and to whose birth no thought has been given."

So I would say that there is a third alternate option to describe DQ  
that you haven't listed. I would say that Dynamic Quality is no  
thing. To quote RMP from Lilas Child:

"Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not  
a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial  
definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic
Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static  
pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The  
best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the  
ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not that.”"

>
>      [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.

Yes it is.  Defining DQ is wrong because DQ is not something.  When  
you put DQ into words your are defining the undefinable.  Purity,  
defined, ceases to be purity. You can deny that you are being  
degenerate when you put DQ into words. But this is a degeneracy of  
another sort (as mentioned earlier by RMP).

> 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.

I have never talked about an 'untrue' DQ.  I only always talk about  
true DQ.  True DQ is no thing. True DQ cannot be described because  
words do not match it.  True DQ is no thing. This is what I have said  
all along.

>
>      [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.

As I have said, with this positive sense you mention, I think that  
you ignore the importance of static patterns and their distinctions.   
Especially when you say things like "DQ is a rock".  DQ is  
nothing.      Not a rock, not your hair, not this keyboard I am  
typing on, no thing.

>      [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.

The answer to this question is just below the passage you just quoted  
in the very same paragraph.

"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."

As you say, you do not free yourself from static patterns by creating  
contradictory static patterns. IMHO, 'DQ is a rock' is a  
contradictory pattern to 'DQ is no thing'.  You are saying DQ is  
something.   DQ is no thing.


>   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.

Are you talking of the experience of a rock or are you talking of the  
experience of DQ?  I think that you have confused here the experience  
of DQ and the experience of a rock.  When RMP says 'you do not free  
yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary  
static patterns', he is not suggesting you ignore the sq distinctions  
between things.  He is saying that you master these distinctions to  
such a degree that they no longer inhibit.

One who is enlightened doesn't see distinctions in things as fixed  
and forever final.  But one who is enlightened doesn't ignore these  
distinctions either as you do when you say "DQ is a rock".  To me  
when you say "DQ is a rock" you are answering the question "Yes, a  
dog has a Buddha nature." This is ugly and you lose your own quality  
when you do so. It's a purity defined. And thus defined, ceases to be  
purity.

> 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.

A rock is not 'free from static patterns', a rock is static  
patterns.  You can even free yourself from the thought of a rock by  
perfecting your thinking on it. However if you have perfected your  
thinking of a rock, this wouldn't mean you don't respect the  
difference between a rock and DQ.

> 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.

Yes, because sq is something, DQ is no thing.

> 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.
>

There is no need to say 'DQ is moral'.  This is more purity defined.   
And as I see it, ceases to be purity.

Cheers SA,

David.