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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

>      [SA previously]
>>      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.
>
>      [David H.]
> Cohere - 'to be united'
>
> ----------
>      What is united?
> Do you mean undifferentiated or
> differentiated or something else?  As I understand
> coherence in the essay, coherence is when all the
> levels come together in a perfect harmony and no
> differentiation/no levels occur, just static quality
> showing undifferentiation/dq.

'Static quality showing undifferentation/dq' is impossible.  sq is  
not the source of DQ.  DQ can be described as the source of all things.

>
>
>      [David H.]
> 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.
>
> ------
>      Dynamic quality is undifferentiated.  Static
> quality is dynamic quality differentiated.

Yes, and the instance this act is made, it is no longer DQ because DQ  
is undifferentiated.  There is no such thing as differentiated DQ.

> Sure
> static quality can cohere, and may show itself as
> undifferentiation.  Dynamic quality is fundamental,
> but since I see static quality as undifferentiation -
> differentiated, then what does "equal footing" clarify
> or signify?

'Equal footing' means in the larger Metaphysical sense, are DQ and sq  
equal or is one more fundamental than the other.  In the MOQ, DQ is  
fundamental.  However it doesn't stop there.  Static quality is an  
unavoidable part of ones life.  Even saying DQ is fundamental is just  
more sq.

Actually RMP talks about this, in fact he sums up the entire MOQ on  
this; the fundamental nature of DQ, and the unavoidableness of sq, in  
the last paragraph of Lila.

"Good as a noun rather than as an adjective is all the Metaphysics of  
Quality is about.  Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an  
adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the  
whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it."



> Or does equal footing mean static
> quality, when cohered, is dynamic quality, which I
> agree.
>

Again, from the dictionary:

Cohere: 'Be united, form a whole.'

Static quality when cohered is DQ?  No, I think that static quality  
when cohered is static quality.


>
>      [SA previously]
>>   Dq is
>> undifferentiated.  To say sq coheres is to open the
>> possibility of sq not cohering, and this is not
>> undifferentiation.
>
>      [David H. responded]
> sq does not cohere(is on equal footing) with DQ.
>
> ------
>      See this is where above cohere means "to be
> united", yet, you say here not cohere = is on equal
> footing.  Not sure what you mean?

I've explained equal footing above.

>
>      [David H.]
> But still, sq does cohere(work) with DQ.
>
> -------
>      Yes, I agree.  Sq does work with dq.  They are
> the same.  They are quality.  One is just
> undifferentiated and the other is differentiated.  Sq
> is dynamic quality differentiate.
>   What is
> differentiated now is all we (or I)
> intellectualize/perceive dynamic quality is.

Yes.

> Could dq
> be anything else we (or I) don't sq now/differentiate
> now?  I don't know.

I don't know what you just said.

>   I could not possibly conceive or
> conceptualize dynamic quality to know what dynamic
> quality is.

I Agree.


>
>
>      [SA previously]
>>   What would sq latch upon?  Sq
>> can't identify anything upon dq to latch.
>
>      [David H.]
> sq is a latch itself.  It needs no mechanism.  It does
> it all by
> itself, this is what it is.  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.
>
> ------
>      How can sq latch nothing?

It doesn't latch like sq A latches on sq B.  If this has confused you  
forget I said it altogether. Sq latches, this is what it does.

The MOQ is mystical, but not completely mystical.  We all say  
something. So I say good is fundamental.   While saying something  
(sq), I say something mystical is fundamental. The saying is sq, what  
I am pointing to is DQ, but I'm not grabbing it, I'm just pointing.   
The undefined good is DQ, any defining we do is static quality.

> Sure we define dq, by
> using static patterns.  Dq is still not defined.

Yes.

>
>      [David H.]
> Yes, however this doesn't change the fact that some
> analogies are
> better than others.
>
> --------
>      Sure some analogies are better than others.  I
> can't latch upon dq.

I agree. I can't 'latch upon' DQ as if it's some kind of sq thing  
either.


> Dq is no-I.  Dq is no-latch.  Dq
> is nothing.  Dq is the no-self, the no-ego, the
> no-fixation.  Dq doesn't attach to anything.  Dq is
> mu.

I agree.


>
>
>      [David H.]
> Limit sq?  What is wrong with saying that one thing,
> out of all
> available options, is the best?
>
> -------
>      How can dq be the best?  Dq is nothing.

I agree, and I never said DQ is the best. I was referring to when  
being given the option between two sq things that it is moral to  
chose the better one.

>
>
>      [David H.]
> Static quality by its very nature is limiting.
>
> -------
>      And/or unlimited just by defining it to be such.
> For sq to have no-limit, no-ego, no-self, is to allow
> sq be creative and be an open system, not closed and
> dead.

Merely defining sq as limiting does not make it unlimited with no- 
ego, no-self and creative.  I could call chaos limiting but that  
doesn't make it unlimited, with no-ego, no-self or creative.  It's  
something undefined; some dimly apprehended thing; it's some thing  
which we cannot speak of, that makes this all possible.  We can  
allude to its existence as you often do well, but this is static  
quality and sq in and of itself is lifeless and dead.

>
>
>      [David H.]
> Fundamentally, the world is not like this.  It's not
> this fixed thing, with fixed boundaries.
>
> -------
>      Exactly.
>
>
>      [David H.]
> But we're alive and can't help but define. So I define
> as best I can.
>
> -------
>      Sure, I define as best I can.  This world is not
> limited by any particular self.  By no-self this is
> possible.

It's just possible, I'm not really sure why :-)

>
> still rainin',
> SA


Cheers SA,

Nice chattin' to ya.

David.