Re: MD Symbolically or actually?

From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 14:18:33 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "MD promises promises"

    Dear Wim,

                    TY once again for taking the time to answer my questions
    which i will comment on in a while.

                    Since discovering the MoQdg my pattern of reading a little
    Pirsig every morning with coffee has changed. At least it has in a manner of
    speaking. Reading MoQdg with coffee is indirectly reading Pirsig in a manner
    of thinking, except when he is quoted. That CAN be called "reading Pirsig"
    in my estimation. To read/see his philosophy(s) in action is in my mind an
    excellent example of Dynamic quality even when i disagree with the
    writer/speaker POV.

                    Perhaps you recall that i create abstract art. i recognized
    as far back as i can re-member that i saw things differently than most of my
    family and friends. It has occurred to me that perhaps a person is latched
    on to what gets coined "native language". If another language is learned
    some time thereafter, words from the new language get translated to the
    "native language" which then provides "meaning". With me the native language
    followed what i call my first language "images". Images can be "pictures"
    which include symbols/signs and if i am to be honest, "feelings". "First
    language" is different than "native language" in that it is not necessarily
    as you put it in your definition of social level: "...patterns of
    > value that are latched by copying and passing on ways of doing things
    > between generations". "Language" is both: social and intellectual is it
    not?

                     This all came up while reading your post.... i thought
    about your words which are not in your native tongue....does he translate i
    wondered as i read: >"......that almost everyone seems to use different
    definitions.
    > Even if they use the same definitions (e.g. Pirsig quotes), they disagree
    > over interpretation. I'm not the only one who doesn't stick to one
    > definition, but changes them over time and according to context and
    subject
    > of discussion. And rightly so, I think." Something about
    this statement triggered a series of other thoughts, questions and
    wonderment....where is that place where we CAN be of one mind and spirit?
    Does such a place or state exist?Where did this image in my mind come from;
    the one that wondered such a thing? My guess is that a pattern developed as
    i read your word. The pattern consisted of images, words, and blank space.
    The blank space is as much a part of the pattern as the images and words
    often getting defined by the absents of image: "negative space".
    Interpretation happens and i'm moved to ask for more definition and
    clarity...information that ideally leads towards something akin to
    agreement. As agreement becomes wider spread the "social pattern of value"
    becomes defined by agreement and hence the social level virtually comes into
    it's own. How does this square with your take ( interpretation/definition )
    on "social level"?

                         i agree that MoQ "... should stay flexible, versatile
    and debatable to stay
    alive." that said doesn't there need to be agreement at times to elevate DQ
    into practical action? Otherwise what good is it if all we do is present
    good arguements and new definitions? The eloquence of the MoQdg is
    captivating indeed but tell me Wim where does it all lead? ; )

    Abstracting with Mari or not.......

    PS The Outlook lesson is most practical....now to put it to use......

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 21 2002 - 14:23:07 GMT