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

[Heather Perella]

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

     I agree.  What I'm saying is sq is dq only in the
sense that since dq is the source of all things, then
dq is the source of all sq.  A source denotes sq came
from, thus was dq.  Yet, I don't see sq moving from dq
to sq.  Dq doesn't move.  Dq is here now as a static
pattern.  This is understood as our conversation
continues...

     [David H.]
> Yes, and the instance this act is made, it is no
> longer DQ because DQ  
> is undifferentiated.

     Exactly

     [David H.]
> There is no such thing as
> differentiated DQ.

     Exactly, and yet, we still know "in this instance
this act was made", thus, we know this differentiation
has a hole in it.


     [David H.]
> '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.

     ok.  I still don't see a difference between sq
and dq.  Sq is still dq differentiated.  I know dq is
undifferentiated, yet, sq was dq and sq did change
when it became sq and no longer is dq, and still I'm
seeing that since sq was dq then sq has a hole in it
and dq shines through all the holes in sq and all I
see is dq outshining static patterns.  Yet, I still
can tell the difference between a tree and a dog, and
also see a meta-reality where tree and dog are this
meta-reality.  This meta-reality is quality.  All is
quality.  In this meta-reality, in this context, it
doesn't stop with tree, it includes dog, flower,
etc...  What is all of this?  Quality.  What is
Quality?  I don't know.  I'm not differentiating
between flower, dog, tree, etc... when viewing
meta-reality, and yet, these are all static patterns,
too.  Sq and dq overlap.  Dq can't differentiate. 


     [David H.] 
> 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."

     Yeap, all static patterns are full of holes with
dharmakaya light shining where these holes are. 
Notice the tree firmly entrenched in the same
suchness, same dq as a dog.


     [David H.]
> Static quality when cohered is DQ?  No, I think that
> static quality  
> when cohered is static quality.

     a good static quality is a dynamic static
quality, right?  And yes, I'm saying 'a nothing static
quality', which is dq.  Nothing static quality is
nothing is static quality.  Ultimate reality/quality
isn't definable.  Sq is nothing.  Sq is ultimately
undefinable.  We can't ultimately define or define
ultimately or have a definition that is ultimate. 


     [David H.]
> The saying is sq, what  
> I am pointing to is DQ, but I'm not grabbing it, I'm
> just pointing.

     "I'm not grabbing it..."  Exactly!  The effort by
any static pattern is the pointing, but never does sq
latch dq.  The effort is pointing at nothing, a
no-self, a hole in sq.

    [David H.]
> The undefined good is DQ, any defining we do is
> static quality.

    yeap

     [David H.]
Nice chattin' to ya.


You as well, thanks.


night for awhile now,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com