From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 18:46:56 BST
Platt
You talk about experiencing art as dynamic quality
that is not thinking, but what about creating art?
Static intellectual patterns are created, during the
process of creation surely DQ comes in, it seems
to me strange to say that this DQ aspect of creativity
has nothing to do with thinking, that you write a sentence
and start to think only when you read it back. Is this what
you are saying. Can't see why an event/activity is not simply
connected to both SQ and DQ at the same time. The split
seems very like wave-particle duality to me. The moving
unpredictable wave is DQ, the determinable/quantifiable
event is always after the event -this is SQ. As I put it
in my novel Be(com)ing/quality is always imminent (sic).
It has always just passed/past and is never present.
Being or static patterns is a sort of presence of the past,
or what has already occurred, only what has occurred is
determined and has lost DQ. I think your dogma of SQ/DQ
split does not work in the form you seem to be suggesting.
regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.
> Hello Mark (DMB mentioned),
>
> Platt:
> > Division is one example of differentiation. To differentiate means to
> > "mark or show a difference." Subject/Object marks a difference as does
> > Dynamic/Static Quality. Both are symbolic differentiations created by
> > intellect.
>
> > Mark:
> > Hello Platt, But there you go again: 'Both are symbolic
> > differentiation's created by intellect.' If Intellect is the process of
> > differentiation, then differentiation cannot be the intellect can it?
> > Differentiation is the static product of a Dynamic process. Bo's SOLAQI
> > says that division IS intellect.
>
> Platt:
> There are many processes that aren't Dynamic. As DMB said, "Bricks and
> bricklaying are both static, you know?" The intellectual process of
> differentiation is static. That's what intellect does. It
> differentiates experience, creates symbols to represent differentiated
> segments, and manipulates the symbols to create ideas.
>
> > Mark:
> > 30-09-03: I agree with: 'Intellect isn't dependent on the S/O
> > division.' I like your use of the term characterise here, and i agree
> > with it as long as we understand it does not have to be that way, and
> > the West can learn from the East: 'The intellectual LEVEL, however, is
> > characterized by the DOMINANCE of the value of the S/O division.'
>
> Platt:
> Agree!
>
> Mark:
> > 30-09-03: Any Dynamic process is responding to DQ? And thinking IS
> > a dynamic process - a static repertoire of intellectual values
> > responding to DQ. It is the preselection of new static patterns based on
> > harmony or Quality. I think we agree more than appears so here, if i may
> > be so presumptuous? The only major difference is that i am sticking
> > closely to the language of the MoQ and using the term DQ and you the
> > term Quality?
>
> Platt:
> "Thinking" isn't a Dynamic process. Thinking is a static intellectual
> process. DQ is not known by thinking. (Refer to how a baby 'knows' DQ
> in LILA, Chp. 9) You cannot think your way to experiencing DQ. As
> Pirsig points out, "Thought is not a path to reality," reflecting the
> mystic view. The response to harmony, the aesthetic response, is
> allied with DQ.
>
> Platt:
> > Personally I'll stick to DQ/SQ and the indispensable value of the
> > individual, the only pattern now capable of responding to DQ.
>
> > Mark:
> > 30-09-03: Not sure if i would commit myself to your view that
> > individuals are the only patterns responding to DQ? I would certainly
> > have allot of time for the view that individuals are responding in such
> > a dynamic way as to make social patterns look limp by comparison?
>
> Platt:
> The crucial importance of the individual is made clear in the following
> excerpt from LILA, Chp.15:
>
> "What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a
> biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society.
> Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought
> too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral
> precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a
> higher level of evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is
> more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more
> moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an
> idea. And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and
> thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets of static
> patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
> Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral
> argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's
> Dynamic capability-its capability for change and evolution."
>
> Compare this to the Rorty/Fish postmodernist view that groupthink
> trumps an individual's ideas.
>
> Be that as it may, our main difference is that you consider thinking as
> somehow a part of DQ while I consider it a static process pattern with
> some processes being of higher quality than others. To me, DQ doesn't
> play any part in thinking at all. Thinking only comes into play after a
> DQ experience. To me, DQ is "what stops you in your tracks," a song, a
> painting, a vista, a pretty girl, or a sentence near the end of a novel
> like, "That's a good dog." :-) When something you experience seems to
> resonate in harmony with the whole universe, that's when you know
> you've been touched by DQ and, for a moment, realized the aesthetic
> continuum.
>
> Platt
>
> "On my fifth birthday my Papa put his hand on my shoulder and said,
> 'Remember, my son, if you ever need a helping hand, you'll find one at
> the end of your arm." --Sam Levenson
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Oct 01 2003 - 18:51:27 BST