Just in order to clean my table:
1. I introduced the issue of Art into this discussion not in order to
discuss Art but in order to find possible structure of SPQ [static patterns
of quality].
Many of your reactions to Art missed therefore the point.
2. To Platt [Mr. Holden I presume] and Co., others who cannot stand Art
theoreticians and Critics, no wonder all you are left with are Aphorisms
[try to take any other subject and dismiss its theories, what you are left
with are your prejudices]. Just let me give you a last aphorism to conclude
your collection:
"Whenever I hear of Culture I reach for my gun" [Goebels]
3. It is strange however that for all other cultural activity we need
theories, just for Art we don't. It is more likely that we use them without
being aware of them.
4. Many people got upset because of my use of SPQ. What led me to this
unpirsig usage is the following question:
"Whenever Quality leaves this thing we call SQ what does it leave behind [as
dogmatic low quality entity]?
My answer is a pattern. Therefore we should be aware of the idea that
a. it is static [therefore the S]
b. it is a pattern [therefore the P]
c. it is a vessel that can hold quality temporarily [therefore the Q].
5. For the people on the list who try to treat ZMM and MoQ as ONE THEORY,
you are totally of the road [like trying to cook in a washing machine]. The
two are stages in a thinking process. Lila emerges from realizing that
Romantic approach has theoretical structure too, it can hold or lose quality
too, therefore the different primal cut DQ/SQ in Lila.
6. I was very disappointed from the lack of awareness to the cultural immune
system, you all must have [reading Lila]. It means that if you feel like
lashing out at a theory, BECAUSE IT COLLIDES with your beliefs, then you
RECOGNIZE the cultural immune system in action. The very little constrictive
criticism I got proves my point.
7. For all who fall for "Organismic MoQ", a thought:
"An Organism should be an outcome of an Quality experience, not the other
way
y round, an Organism should be an outcome not an assumption [a biological
SPQ]."
another thought:
" In the stove example a stove is not a biological object, yet it belongs to
reality".
8. To the DMB DMB, If you want to criticize me read me in the original.
I believe that Platt or Roger suggested that format that made my messages so
tiresome, try to look in the mirror for other reasons why you got so tired.
9. There are no roundabout, going into structuring if you want to make MoQ
usable. This means the structuring of SPQ and the formation of layers. To
let MoQ remain a dream of generalities is good for lazy romantics but not
for those who want to make it operational.
10. I started my input to this list with a lot of things to share, but I
feel like teaching Talmud to a bunch of Nazis
Avid
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST