MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony.

From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 20:08:09 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD On Morality"
  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Looking for the Primary Difference"

    [Case]
    Confusion melting away with experience sounds
    uncomfortablly like habituation. One can eventually
    adjust to the sound of fingernails on chalkboard;
    perhaps even learn to like it.

    Mark:
    I read ZMM for the first time a few months before Lila
    was first published: My uncle let me borrow his copy
    of ZMM, which he had had for some years, and a few
    months later my uncle bought his first edition copy of
    Lila and gave it to me because he didn't like it. I,
    on the other hand, read ZMM and Lila as one continuous
    book, so to speak. As such, didn't experienced a
    problem with Quality/DQ until people such as my uncle
    and yourself began to quibble.
    These people generated the source of my confusion, and
    that confusion melted away as i stepped back and
    relied upon my own view of the matter.
    I suppose you could say i have therefore habitually
    come to rely upon my own views rather than those of
    others. This is a Buddhist doctrine of 'see for
    yourself' and that is all i suggest you do Case.
    As for the fingernail on the blackboard point; i don't
    find that noise distressing in any case, but i get
    what you mean. For me, the feeling of cotton wool is
    distressing.

    [Case]
    Strike heresy insert silly.

    Mark:
    Pick up a piece of Horse shit and through it at a
    statue of Jesus. A few Hundred years ago you would be
    lucky if you did not have your heart cut out and
    nailed to an Oak tree. Silly?
    Today you would be arrested and thrown in clink for a
    spell to cool off, and maybe charged for damages.
    But if you threw your Horse shit at a Buddha statue, a
    buddhist would not be offended.

    [Case]
    Book him, Dano.

    Mark:
    At this point, i'll thank you for helping me to think
    about Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary
    ontology as harmony. It's excitting to have remained
    so close to the topic in hand.

    [Case]
    Call me dense if you will but I see no distinction at
    all between Quality and DQ described above.

    Mark:
    I have no problem with that.

    Case:
    I still maintain that one term or the other is
    superfluous and perniciously so. I find my definition
    of DQ simpler, more useful as a pragmatic tool and
    more consistant with the world as I see it.

    Mark:
    That's fine.
    However, chaos is not DQ in the MOQ and RMP underlines
    this in the 1993 AHP conference tape when he says, 'DQ
    is not chaos' or something telling like that.
    I don't equate chaos with anything other than
    patterned nonesense. Patterned nonsense is analogous
    to cancer in biological patterns, rioting in social
    patterns, and Ham Priday in intellectual patterns.
    I'm sure you get the drift.

            
            
                    
    ___________________________________________________________
    Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Thu Oct 06 2005 - 22:51:52 BST