From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 23:42:58 BST
Matt, Johnny, Platt and all,
I'd like to thank Matt for saving me the trouble of writing a response to
Johnny. Unfortunately, "subsuming DQ under static patterns" as Matt says,
has always been the driving force behind Johnny's take on the MoQ...
> > Johnny said:
> > That balance of Dynamic and Static you refer to is a certain expected
> > balance, there is a static pattern of how much to 'twist' a movie plot
to
> > make it fresh but familiar. The changes may seem like changes, but they
> > are really just static patterns carrying forward and interacting with
other
> > patterns in expected ways.
> >
> > Matt:
> > To me, this looks like subsuming DQ under static patterns, making it
static
> > patterns all they down--and all the way up. If history were simply a
> > matter of static pattern forming in expected ways, I expect that we
could
> > come up with a science of history and predict the ways static patterns
will
> > form. This is the dead end that Marx led us down, the hypostatization
of
> > History. Rather than saying it's static patterns "carrying forward and
> > interacting with other patterns in expected ways," I would say it's
static
> > patterns carrying forward and interacting with other patterns in
> > _un_expected ways. You have the "static patterns carrying forward and
> > interacting with other patterns" bit down, because if the future weren't
> > our static patterns carrying forward in some manner, we wouldn't
identify
> > the future as being our future. A utopic vision of the future is one in
> > which our patterns are carryed forward, but there's no way to predict
what
> > this will pan out to be. That's what DQ is. Dynamic Quality is the
> > unexpected burst of beauty, though according to convention it shouldn't
be
> > there. And because it shouldn't be there according to convention, we
can't
> > explain other than in retrospection, a post hoc rationalization. This
ad
> > hoc explanation is tuned to the particular instance of Dynamic Quality.
> > What is a dead end is if we try to go transcendental and try and set an
> > explanation of what all breaks with convention will look like. That's
what
> > I take the hypostatization of History to be: an attempt to outflank DQ
and
> > call it all convention, static patterns. That's why DQ is undefined.
It
> > only unfolds in history, leaving behind it waves of static patterns.
P
> Nice, Matt. I wish I'd said that.
R
Me too. When Matt says "it's static patterns carrying forward and
interacting with other patterns in _un_expected ways" he is describing the
balance of static and dynamic elements which I was trying to allude to when
I made my comments to Johnny. Thanks again Matt.
take care
rick
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of the
imagination. - John Dewey
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 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 23:40:58 BST