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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

> Hey David H.
>
> I'll give it a go.  I've read the archive paper 'Edge
> of Chaos' and the conference paper.
>
>
> ==PATTERNISING DQ==
>
> Mark 16-10-06: But if COA = DM = DQ that is precisely
> what you are
> doing, unless as you suggest, it's the conditions
> we're spelling  out.
>
>
>      Oh my, a question already.  What is DM?

Dynamic Morality. Mentioned in Lila, this is the term Mark uses as he  
doesn't like the term Code of Art.

>
>
> David 19-12-06:
> That DQ appears where it does has nothing to do with
> our static
> understanding.   Once you take notice of DQ, DQ
> becomes sq, so DQ did not appear!  We can only hope to
> allude to DQ and its existence
> through analogy and the like.  As I said above, the
> better these
> analogies, the better the sq.
>
>
>      David, why the need for dq, when we can't even
> experience dq?
>

We can't experience DQ? You think this?


> ==BENEFITS OF COHERENCE==
>
> Mark 16-10-06: That's why Coherence is more sq. But it
> may be a
> appreciable addition to our sq understanding?
>
> David 19-12-06:
> To put your question another way.  Does Coherence IMHO
> point to the
> moon well? No. This is because within Lila and the
> structure of the
> MOQ there is already a concept which fits your desired
> goal of
> 'formulating a sq description where DQ shines
> through'.  IMHO Rta
> answers this call of being an excellent finger
> pointer, because if
> done rightly, removes the finger altogether.
>
> [SA]     I see dq and excellence, and even spirit (not
> to get caught up in the religious baggage of this term
> or ghosts).  When discussing spirit I mean to also say
> 'when everything just seems to come together', when
> something has spunk it has spirit, when a ceremony is
> beautiful the spirit of the ceremony that aspect of
> the ceremony that words can't really describe but yet
> it's the whole ceremony in harmony or one might just
> say the spirit of the ceremony was excellent:
> spirit=excellence.  Coherence is another harmonizing
> understanding about an experience.  Coherence is when
> 'everything just seems to come together'.  So
> excellence or spirit might suggests the 'life' of the
> coherent event?  Yet, it seems coherence as in 'sweet
> spot' is not separating the life of the event in
> 'which everything just seems to come together'.  I
> could easily separate the 'life' of coherence, that is
> the spirit or excellence of coherence, but coherence
> does incorporate this 'life' or excellence.  I'm not
> seeing the difference right now.
>

Yes.  Coherence, life, spirit, excellence, call it what you will,  
they are all referring to the same thing

>
>      [David H.]
> In case you have forgotten, below is a paste of a
> comment of mine
> from the 15-10-06 regarding rta.
> "Of course, that is not to say there there won't be
> times when we
> cannot see DQ.  Zen meditation or something of this
> ilk helps to
> reduce these times through perfection of sq
> patterns(rta) which
> reveals the DQ that has been there all along."
> A perfected pattern is coherent. If you want to
> contrive a situation
> where there is nothing but DQ, simply perfect a sq
> pattern.  The
> easiest and most simple activity to perfect is to
> 'just sit'.  Don't
> DO anything, just sit.  If you sit there for long
> enough, you will
> notice your mind winding down, and eventually once it
> has wound down completely all that is left is 'just
> sitting'. It is at this point
> enlightenment occurs.
> ------
>
> [SA]   From this quote, I would have to agree
> excellence and coherence are the same.
>
>
>
>
>
> David 19-12-06:
> That is because the sq, the analogies of DQ, are
> better.
>
>
> [SA]     I'm not sure of the better here.  Why the
> need for sq to be better than dq?

I am not suggesting that sq is better than DQ. I am suggesting, that  
some sq is better than other sq.  When sq A is better than sq B, you  
cannot really say why, it's just better.  This is DQ at work.  It's  
just a vague sense of betterness.

> I use this notion.
> Sq latches upon dq, which is impossible, yet, the
> effort is present for all is quality.

Static quality latching upon DQ is impossible? IMHO sq latching upon  
DQ is not only possible, this is what sq is.  Static quality is a  
latch upon Dynamic Quality. Fundamentally everything is DQ.  But we  
have to say something, and this is sq.

>   This latching
> effort is therefore 'sq-returning-upon-its'-self' or
> 'sq-returning-upon-its'-no-self'.  Sq only is involved
> in effort.  Sq can only return.  To return upon its'
> no-self is to fulfill quality without the split.  Yet,
> all that I am doing is putting this understanding into
> static patterns for dq is nothing.  This returning
> involves a 'breaking away-return'.  The breaking away
> and if new static latch is available, then evolution
> without degeneration.  Coherence works here, maybe
> best, due to its' explanatory definition that implies
> 'togetherness', thus, when sq latches upon dq and
> can't the sq effort returns upon its' self (no-self)
> due to the coherence, the togetherness involved in
> static quality.  As long as the coherence holds this
> event is an enhancement, evolution, brightening,
> excellent, new moment newly defined.  Sq breaks away
> from its' self upon no-self and returns as something
> newly defined.  Creative process.
>
>

This all seems convoluted and unnecessary.

>
>
>
> Mark 16-10-06: No, Chaos and Stasis are not
> requirements. This is
> what  happens to sq when DQ is being blocked.
> The requirement for DQ is coherence.
> Meditation increases coherence. As Coherence becomes
> ever more
> unifying DQ shines.
>
> David 19-12-06:
> The requirement for DQ is that there is no
> requirement. As I'm
> repeatedly stating, if you want a signpost to DQ there
> is only rta
> (Meditation), which is no requirement at all.  As
> patterns become
> more perfected and coherent through rta, DQ shines.
>
>
> [SA]     Mark is stating chaos, stasis, and coherence
> offers explanation to when dq is blocked.

I agree. It does. But I don't think it's the best one.

> Dq isn't
> always noticed, for instance, this mainstream U.S.
> culture.  rta doesn't explain this.
>

If DQ 'isn't noticed' then as we both know, sq is blocking DQ.  The  
only way to truly remove sq is by perfecting it.  For example,  
intellectually, through Koan's or socially, through rituals.  It is  
in this repeating of the same mundane thought, or same mundane  
ritual, that the DQ lies.  You free yourself from static patterns by  
getting them perfect. Or as RMP says in Lila on page 440.

"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 can be found."




> Realization is
> necessary.

Realization is not a 'thing'. Realization as the discovery of DQ  
which was there all along is best explained by perfecting patterns.   
If you perfect patterns which according to the MOQ, are almost as  
fundamental as DQ, then they disappear.  Why? Because they're  
perfected.  The beauty of this description of reality can be easy to  
miss because of its simplicity. But it really is beautiful. A pattern  
perfected, well done, completed and beautiful; disappears. A pattern  
imperfect, badly done, is not complete and ugly; waits to be done and  
blocks DQ.

>   Sure an excellent practice such as
> meditation can be a practice in which is rta.  Yet,
> the realization must occur.  rta isn't offering
> explanation about chaos and stasis.  Pirsig discusses
> cultural immune system and this fits in nicely with
> chaos and stasis.

Chaos: "Not the source of anything, not bad or good, random."

Stasis: "Too much static quality."

When things are too chaotic, they cannot be perfected because there  
isn't anything to get a hold of.  ( A bad thing)

When there is too much static quality to handle, it cannot be  
perfected. (Another bad thing)

The cultural immune system avoids both chaos and stasis by trying to  
keep the amount of static quality in the culture to a minimum.


> Creatively we may provide clarity
> upon this perspective as to describe static patterns
> as either being chaotic, stasis (tension might be
> another term here to use for stasis or static is this
> whole pattern we're describing, yet, here is more
> specific), and coherent.  I also view this realization
> of itself, thus, sq realizing dq, for sq can only
> realize, is the same as saying quality realizing
> itself.  Sq splitting from dq is quality realizing
> itself.  Yet, what happens when static patterns no
> longer latch upon dq or 'break
> away-to-only-return-upon-its'-no-self', thus, this is
> the same as saying sq renews itself.  Sq is no longer
> its' old self or self.  Sq is not that self, thus, is
> no-self.  Once we explain this no-self we are now
> latching static patterns once again.  It's a creative
> process.  What if this doesn't happen and realization
> is dimmed or lost?  Dimmed=stasis and lost=chaotic
> realizations occur.  Evolution is stifled or stuck.
>


More unnecessary convolution.

>
> thanks.
>
> dog sleepin', baby sleepin', wide-awake
> SA
>
> P.S. Is Squonk Mark Maxwell?

Yes.

Cheers,

David.