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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

>
>      [David H.]
>> 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.
>
>
>      I agree with you that saying sq=dq is dangerous,
> very dangerous indeed.  If somebody doesn't fully
> understand how this is (sq=dq), then the terminology
> loses its' polarity.  Yet, eventually, isn't it this
> polarity that is to be not opposing magnets as in
> negative and positive pushing each other away.

sq and DQ are polar opposites. DQ is everything which sq is not,  
which is nothing.  DQ needs sq just as the positive needs the  
negative.  Without DQ things do not change, and die of old age,  
without sq, the quality of order, things become chaotic. Each needs  
the other.  But that each needs the other, is by no way saying they  
are the same. In fact, it says they are different. It says they are  
polar opposite and harmonious.  The very thing which you are trying  
to show.

> Another danger is to have dq somewhere 'out-there'
> beyond experience, like a heaven we can't touch where
> the gods live.

I agree this is a danger.

> So, two dangers.  One is not truly
> understanding how sq=dq, and the other dq is divided
> from sq in reality, forever, where dq is the place of
> gods so to speak.

The first danger as I have said, is not a danger because sq does not  
equal DQ.  The second danger you mention is to mistake DQ as sq. DQ  
is not some separate sq thing 'out-there'. DQ is nothing!  Mistaking  
DQ as some sq thing, I think can easily come from saying DQ = sq.
>
>
>      [David H.]
>> 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.
>
>      Strictly speaking, you are correct.  Yet, when we
> say all is quality does that mean sq and dq must
> 'overlap' or be together, in order to be 'enclosed'
> within quality.  How does sq and dq come together?  Sq
> and dq don't push each other away.

They do push each other away, and yet they work harmoniously, for the  
one needs the other to work as I said above.

> Dq is fundamental
> reality, and sq is this fundamental reality defined.
> So, with this last statement it is noticed how sq can
> be dq.  I've shown the two dangers above with one of
> those dangers mentioned by you.

Yes.

>
>
>      [David H.]
>> 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.
>
>      I total agree with what your saying here.  Yet, I
> hope you see the danger in keeping dq apart from sq.

There is a danger in keeping DQ apart from sq as if DQ was some sq  
thing to keep separate from sq.  But it is not, because DQ is no- 
thing!  A Buddhist Philosopher from the 1st C AD, Nagarjuna says that  
DQ is negation.  Whenever it is claimed that DQ is something, you  
negate and say it isn't.  DQ negates everything, including the  
statement that DQ is negation. :-)

> And yes, we do keep defining, and yet, while I
> meditate I don't define.  I have experienced moments
> of 'what the heck is this', but through practice my
> habit doesn't latch upon these kinds of questions
> while meditating.  Actually while meditating now if I
> do latch onto these kinds of questions I don't feel
> well, my head spins, I lose focus, and the meditation
> will throw me off for the rest of the day, night, or
> until I regain the understanding of quietness, again.
>  Now-a-days, these moments of lost focus, haven't been
> around that much, and as long as I keep practicing, I
> hope it stays this way.  I did say while meditating I
> don't define, because as I discuss with you or anybody
> else it is important to define 'things' correctly.
> Yet, with you and anybody else the same undefining is
> still happening.
> As long as I realize this, then I'm
> realizing dq in sq or in other words, non-attachment.
> This also avoids the danger of placing dq somewhere
> else away from static patterns.

I think it's important to understand the difference between the two  
ways of 'knowing' that I have mentioned before.  We can 'know' beyond  
all descriptions, and we can 'know' intellectual thoughts.  The MOQ  
emphasises the importance of them both.  They both need each other,  
not all of one and not all of the other, so they still are separate  
things and important in themselves.  Talk of 'undefining' is the  
first typing of knowing, saying dq=sq is the first type of knowing  
also and I think is dangerous in regards to the second type of knowing.

All that said, I've said this before many times, but your non- 
defining is refreshing on this forum SA, and it's appreciated.

Cheers,

David.