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

[David Harding]

Hi SA,
>
>      [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.
>
>

Yes. Without DQ, sq is not possible. But they are still separate.  If  
they aren't separated then there is no intellectual distinction and  
we cannot say anything meaningful.

>      [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.

sq and DQ are complete opposites, defined as such they push each  
other away. But they aren't opposites in the traditional exclusive  
sense, they are opposite qualities. So whilst they are opposite,  
because they are qualities they work together.


>
>
>      [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.

Yes.

>   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.

Yes.
>
>
>      [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....

Right. In my view, this point in which you sit, the one of quality  
with no metaphysical distinctions, is dangerous because if you talk  
form this perspective and ignore the distinctions of the MOQ by  
saying 'sq is DQ' etc., then it is not as sound metaphysically as it  
could be.

Actually, I think it's possible to maintain the distinctions of the  
MOQ while looking from perspective of quality where 'everything is  
connected' and avoid unnecessary confusion.  This can be done by  
saying, from the perspective of the MOQ, as a qualitative whole there  
is no DQ 'in' sq.  I think, according to the MOQ, it is better to say  
quality is both sq and DQ.  Quality is both sq and DQ to the degree  
that they both use the word.

I think this emphasises your point without the metaphysical mistake  
of thinking DQ is some thing inside sq.  We go beyond sq and DQ to  
the root of things metaphysically and show they are connected, like  
you have tried to, but still maintain their separateness.

Cheers,

David.