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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,


>
>
>      [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.


Cohere - 'to be united'

To me this is broken into two questions.

Q: Is static quality on as equal a metaphysical footing as Dynamic  
Quality?

A: No, Dynamic Quality is fundamental.

and

Q: Does static quality 'work', with Dynamic Quality?

A: Yes.  While Dynamic Quality is fundamental, static quality is  
still an unavoidable, necessary part of life to the degree that any  
description of life is sq.


>   Dq is
> undifferentiated.  To say sq coheres is to open the
> possibility of sq not cohering, and this is not
> undifferentiation.

sq does not cohere(is on equal footing) with DQ.  But still, sq does  
cohere(work) with DQ.


>   What would sq latch upon?  Sq
> can't identify anything upon dq to latch.

sq is a latch itself.  It needs no mechanism.  It does it all by  
itself, this is what it is.


> 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.
>

A 'latch' latches upon DQ.  We take the ever changing, always new,  
mysterious, fundamental nature of the world and define it.  Whether  
this is moral or not, picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics  
are a part of life.  The MOQ says, we can't help but do it, so let's  
do the best we can.

>
>      [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?

Yes, however this doesn't change the fact that some analogies are  
better than others.

> 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.
>

Limit sq?  What is wrong with saying that one thing, out of all  
available options, is the best?  Static quality by its very nature is  
limiting.  Fundamentally, the world is not like this.  It's not this  
fixed thing, with fixed boundaries.  But we're alive and can't help  
but define. So I define as best I can.

>
>      [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.

yes.

>
>
>      [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.

ok.

> Dq is everything in completion, but
> a static pattern not cohering, not excellent isn't
> allowing for the presence of dq to be noticed.

yes.

>   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.

yes.
>
>
>
> in this quiet abode a bird nests,
> SA
>

Cheers SA,

David.