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

[Heather Perella]

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


     oh, I know what dynamic morality is.  I guess, I
just couldn't figure out what the initials stood for.


> 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.

     [SA previously]
>      David, why the need for dq, when we can't even
> experience dq?

     [David H.]
We can't experience DQ? You think this?

-----
     No, I think we do experience dq.  I guess when
your saying alluding to dq, through analogy and such,
it's just the mentioning of dq that your trying to
state, the what is dq, not the absence of dq.  ok,
just clearing 'things' up.


> [SA previously]     I'm not sure of the better here.
 Why the
> need for sq to be better than dq?

     [David H.]
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.

-----
     ok.

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

     [David H.]
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.

-------     
     What I understand about latching, is latching is
a sticking.  Not a stuckness, but a sticking upon. 
This is why I like coherence, too.  For by sticking,
I'm talking about coherence (the white+red=pink
example).  Sq can't cohere to dq.  Dq is
undifferentiated.  To say sq coheres is to open the
possibility of sq not cohering, and this is not
undifferentiation.  What would sq latch upon?  Sq
can't identify anything upon dq to latch.  Now, maybe
your talking about the effort of sq to latch upon dq. 
I see sq making an effort, but the only latching I
notice is static latching.  Thus, for a latch to stick
or coher, a latch has to stick upon a static pattern,
therefore, it is called static latching.


     [SA previously]
>   This latching
> effort is therefore 'sq-returning-upon-its'-self' or
> 'sq-returning-upon-its'-no-self'.  Sq only is
involved
> in effort.  

     [David H.]
This all seems convoluted and unnecessary.

---------
      This effort where code of art is, rids any
fixation, any ego.  I see anything happening where
code of art is, as an event where no adherence to any
strict, rigid definition occurs, which is to avoids
any - this is totally it - static events.  The 'it'
can be mentioned, for instance, coherence or
sq-latching-dq.  No matter what static pattern is
present this sq is not absolutely permanent and is not
absolutely impermanent.  It is static, but not dead. 
This is also the same as alluding to dq.  Sq alludes
to dq, and is an analogy of dq, but no-self, no ego
fixed 'this is it through and through' is present -
it's only an analogy, right?  Also, as Mark mentioned
white+red=pink.  These are static patterns latching
and now pink is present.

     [David H.]
I agree. It does. But I don't think it's the best one.

------
     By the way, you said this referring to chaos,
stasis, etc... refers to when dq is blocked.  When you
say, you "don't think it's the best one" I look at
this as referring to no-self, no fixed ego.  To say
anything is the best analogy is to limit sq.


     [David H.]
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."


----------
     It sounds so backwards or I'm not used to hearing
it put this way, yet, I understand what your saying. 
The effort in the mundane is a static pattern not
noticed anymore.  Yet, to be alert and conscious
still, but of what during any mundane practice?  Well,
the mundane levels-off any emphasis, and
differentiations are not noticed.  This is quiet, and
quiet is very, very loud.  Quiet is deafening.


     [David H.]
   ...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.

-------
     What it seems your saying is that whenever a
static pattern is noticed, and it seems undone, this
realized undone static pattern is such a way, due to
an unnoticed dq.  Dq is everything in completion, but
a static pattern not cohering, not excellent isn't
allowing for the presence of dq to be noticed.  Any
static pattern is completed by dq, if the static
pattern is excellent.  Thus, any practice that is
excellent is a practice being dq or, in other words,
showing dq, for no ripples upon the water is
undifferentiated sq.  This truly is a static pattern
in which has no ego and dq is able to shine
undifferentiated.  



in this quiet abode a bird nests,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited