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

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> > 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.

     [David H.]
> 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.

     Ok, maybe using the = sign doesn't help.  What
I'm trying to say is when I notice sq I notice dq
also.  Without any dq 'in', 'with', 'overlap', or
'amidst' sq, then sq is dead.  Another way to look at
it might be, search in any static pattern and
eventually nothing, dq, will be found.  Sq is not
separate from dq.  What of all the static patterns? 
What of their static quality?  Still existing.  Still
meaningful.  Still what they are, yet, ultimately -
undefinable and bam! a flash of dq found in sq.  With
all our typed static patterns dynamic quality is
noticed, especially when I say:  dynamic quality.  So,
in this static pattern typed, d-y-n-a-m-i-c
q-u-a-l-i-t-y you will notice true dq and yet, all I
did was show you a static pattern.


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

     I don't understand how nothing pushes.  How
nothing works harmoniously.  


     [David H.]
> 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. :-)

     Yes, I understand this, and have heard of this
Indian (from India).  He is in the Zen spiritual
lineage.  This is my whole point though.  Dq is not a
'thing' separate from sq.  Dq is nothing.  All that
is, is static patterns and dq.  These static patterns
will show dq.  Nagarjuna did.  I'm sure he spoke of
Nothingness.  It is the ordinary tea pot that is
dynamic quality.  To not be able to have dq present in
this static world is to throw dq out into the cold to
die.    

 
     [David H.]
> 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.

     Yes, it is dangerous.  If I say a tea pot is this
'thing', then I say this tea pot is 'no-thing', which
one is true?  Both.  It depends on which 'knowing' one
is practicing.  I see your point.  If I were to begin
to say dq is sq to the point that all I say is sq this
and sq that and I don't mention dq anymore, then we've
lost dq.  If I say sq is dq, and sq a tea pot is dq
and a tree is dq, then we've lost sq.  If I say dq is
sq, then I'm still mentioning both exist.  Dq is still
dq.  Sq is still sq.  And dq is sq.  I am sitting upon
a place where dq can go this way, sq this way, dq may
be lost, sq may be lost, dq is sq.  This point in
which I sit where all this might happen is called
quality.  Quality has an original split called dq/sq,
etc....

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

     Thank you, and this tree is not only non-defining
as the leaves fall in autumn as buds in the spring
complete the year. 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html