From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 03:10:52 GMT
Squank,
I wish you would cut this Zen Master, I am doing ART, load of BS.
sq: This is poor stuff. And once again displays ignorance.
Andy: Matt addressed your first attempt at saying something concrete about
his essay point by point. Rather than displaying ignorance, he
conclusively exposed it.
SQ: Everything that trots out of my mouth, your mouth, our language is
metaphor. It is a short step from metaphor to, 'Talking.'
Andy: Ok, what exactly are you setting up here?
SQ: Talking has its pragmatic instrumental uses causally connected to
consequences - for you, not me i hasten to add.
Andy: What?
SQ: But that is so far short of expressing what Quality is in ZMM and Lila
as to be exceptionally lacking in value. That is why you write: 'I'm not
sure what you are saying...'
Andy: Hey Squank, nobody knows what you are saying. ANYBODY, What is
Squank saying here? Interpret it for us. We don't understand!
SQ: To you,i am 'just' saying, i.e. talking and using metaphor that you
have no correspondence with - like an algorithm in a robot.
Andy: You are writing without any idea of how your final project will look
to your audience. Matt thinks about what he writes and is open to moving
on. He doesn't consider his thoughts as the final word. Your appeal to
metaphors and talking for an inability to make yourself understood will not
bail you out here.
SQ: To state that Quality will never be known is diametrically opposed to
immediate preintellctual awareness of Quality. Epistemologically, Quality
epistemology is an analogue of the very thing it is concerned with;
Andy: Matt says quality is real. I don't know. I think it is a human
construct. We recognize patterns. Some patterns over others. Some of
these patterns the majority of humans agree upon. These helped us survive
in the world - evolution. Quality in the way you use it, as something
which is inside of a work of art, is almost certainly a social construct.
What has quality in one time period will not necessarily have quality in
another. Quality is a term for the patterns we like. Patterns formed by
relationships. In ART, these are patterns which will be influenced by the
people around us. We may like something when we are 10 years old, that we
don't like when we are 25. So, where did the quality go? It is not real,
in the same sense as the physical world around us. I am afraid, Squank,
you have gone off the deep end, with your view of an absolute
"pre-intellectual" quality. Not that this isn't a worthwhile position to
defend, because it may well be, but because you have made it your mission
to eradicate any other view of quality which opposes it.
SQ: There are many philosophers who view intuitive knowledge as THE
knowledge worth having.
Andy: Names and examples Please.
SQ: And intuitive knowledge is closer to wisdom than the cold porridge of
your
metaphor.
Andy: Cold Porridge? English wit, I take it. This is your idea of a work
of art?
SQ: Causation is abandoned in the MoQ.
Andy: Causation is abandoned in the MOQ? This might be an interesting
revelation. I am interested. Maybe some more on this.
SQ: The problem of causation is a metaphysical concern, so, you appear
happy to use the metaphor of causation when it suits you, and yet you do
not value the metaphor of metaphysics.
Andy: Again, I don’t know what you are saying here.
SQ: You write without soul, without conviction, without beauty, without
creativity, without wit, without humour, without insight, without Quality.
You show no appreciation of non-linguistic art, intelligence, creativity,
expression or insight. Your motorcycle exists in a thesaurus.
Andy: I wish you would take your stick act to my neighborhood pub. The
boys and I would break that your Zen Master Stick right smack over your
head. But don’t worry, the pain is just a biological pattern. You are
only likely to be offended if you hold your biological status dear. And if
that is the case you “target yourself more than anything.” I am tiring of
your little Zen experiment. Your ends justifies the means mentality. Your
appeal to some “purpose.” It is easy to act like a “you know what” on the
internet. Anyone can always pretend to be someone they are not. Matt is
genuine. He is not posturing as anything, but someone interested in Rorty,
Pirsig and philosophy. You, however, think you can fool us into thinking
you are some Zen Master engaged in the everyday purpose of doing ART. And
this justifies your incoherence and your vulgarity. Try your act in my
neighborhood pub. I dare you. Or try it out in your own neighborhood. I
guarantee that stick won’t get you very far.
Andy
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 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 03:11:20 GMT