RE: MD Coherence and MOQ levels. part 1

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 22:19:12 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "RE: MD Ronald Reagan"

     

    Mark 12-6-04: Hello dmb, May i ask you to avoid using coloured text please?
    My computer and screen are so old you would not believe, and blue text does
    not look good for me. Thanks.

    [David Buchanan] Blue text? I don't know how to fix that. For reasons that
    are beyond me, that's just what happens when I respond to your posts. It
    also inserts my full name in bracketts. In fact, I was going to ask you to
    do something about it. Apparently, we are both annoyed by it.

    Mark said:
    Quality produces aesthetic harmony. Aesthetic harmony is moral.
    This is the oldest idea known to man.
    Coherence is an MOQ derived way of describing Harmonious aesthetic
    relationships between static patterns.
     
    dmb says:
    Coherence describes what? This is exactly what I DON'T understand. Here you
    seem to be expressing your main idea about coherence (I guess?) but it makes
    no sense to me. There are many kinds of Quality. There are many kinds of
    morals. There are many kinds of static patterns. Its just too vague. It is
    so broadly stated that it means nothing. Further, it seems that the MOQ
    describes the reasons for and the purpose of CONFLICT, not harmony. The
    discrete nature of the levels precludes such harmony. I just don't know how
    to object in any way that is more specific because it all looks like a big
    jumbled and mixed and tnalged and vague and contradictory. This is so ironic
    that its funny. You're making an incoherent and artless argument in favor
    coherence and art.

    [David Buchanan] I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but this just won't
    do. Can't you offer quotes, examples, explanations and maybe a definition or
    two? Again, I'm quite sincere when I say this makes no sense. It may hurt
    your feelings, and it might not be true for everyone, but it is still a
    genuine point.
     
    Maybe reading your essay would help, but I have not read it because (A) I
    never read an essay on the site that was worth the effort and (B) I can
    barely understand your posts and so have no confidence that your essay would
    be much different and C) I'm up to my eyeballs in unread material that I
    actuallly want to read. (Like McWatt's text book for starters)

    I[David Buchanan] 've been through this sort of thing with others and have
    lost my patience. I've already asked several times. I will read whatever
    answers you'd care to provide, but I won't ask you again. Either you have a
    clear answer or you don't. I really don't want to go round and round. At the
    risk of being rude, either put up or shut up. Make the case or leave me
    alone. No hard feelings either way.
     
    Thanks,
    dmb

    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 : Sat Jun 12 2004 - 22:44:56 BST