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

[David Harding]

On 19/01/2007, at 3:27 PM, Heather Perella wrote:

>      [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...

DQ is not a static pattern.

>
>      [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.
>

An act is only ever made on reflection.  This does not prove the  
existence of DQ in sq as you seem to be suggesting here.

>
>      [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.

Yes.  But I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with your terminology of  
'overlap'.  It is dangerous. DQ is not some thing to overlap.

>
>
>      [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.
>

Same DQ as a dog?  I can see that your making a point, and it is an  
important one.  For everything must have come from DQ.  But it is  
dangerous.  Strictly speaking, within the MOQ dog is not DQ, dog is  
sq.  I realise your making a point but if we are to say something  
meaningful it should be correct.


>
>      [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.

I agree.  But we go ahead and define anyway, it is unavoidable.   
Moreover, good definitions are as accurate as possible. That is why I  
say sq is something, and DQ is nothing.

>
>
>      [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.

Yes. But, DQ is not a hole in sq.  DQ as you say, is nothing, no  
thing, or no static-quality.

Cheers,

David.