Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:59:08 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Lila's Child"

    Part II

    > Intellectual patterns have a dynamic component and a static component.

    Here's an intellectual pattern. "My dog has fleas." Now please point
    out the dynamic and static components and why you think they are so.

    squonk: That's a fair question.
    Static component = symbolic linguistic repertoire, 'My, dog, has, fleas +
    associated smells, sights, sounds, alternatives.' These patterns are learned.
    Dynamic component = intuited coherent aesthetic relationship between static
    repertoire and DQ.
    Note: The Dynamic component can vary in its aesthetic. For example, the
    Dynamic component may cohere as the aesthetically more pleasing static pattern: 'My
    fleas have a dog.' <joke - followed by Dynamic laughter>

    > The relationship between the two began with the symbolic representation
    > of other patterns of value - biological and social. So, we can see that
    > intellect developed at a point very much associated with lower patterns.
    > As symbolic manipulation became more dynamic, the relationship between
    > the static and dynamic aspects of the intellectual process became
    > increasingly self serving.

    Again, very difficult for me to follow. How does symbolic manipulation
    become more dynamic? Can you cite some examples? What do you mean by
    self-serving? Who's the self in this case?

    squonk: Symbolic manipulation is more Dynamic when the relationship between
    DQ and the static repertoire becomes open to more coherent and aesthetic
    relationships. For example, if i spoke French, then there is the potential for the
    intuited aesthetic coherence of 'My dog has fleas' to become, 'Mon chien has
    one flea on his chin.'
    By self serving i mean less reliant upon lower levels.
    The self in this case is the sum total of all intellectual static patterns
    that constitute 'squonk.'

    >Ancient Greek civilisation was to intellect as sex was biological
    > patterns - the intellect at this stage in its evolution began to
    > transcend its static evolution - began to become more dynamic than its
    > ancient social and biological symbolic origins and became a method of
    > inferring highly stable relationships between aesthetically pleasing
    > patterns of static quality. This development crystallised definitions
    > under the geometric method, thus allowing patterns if social and
    > biological experience to appear more static than they are.

    Don't mean to be rude, but it's Greek to me.

    squonk: That's funny. You are being Dynamic, but relevant also. And i
    appreciate you taking the time to say it. My fear is that so many years have been
    spent debating that which is not expanding the MoQ, that once any serious attempt
    at immersion within the MoQ and see things from its perspective sound like,
    errrrr, Greek.
    I think you may agree that sexual choice made biological patterns more
    responsive to Quality? All i am saying is that ancient Greek culture did something
    vaguely analogous to symbolic manipulation. I have argued that this leap is not
    dependent on any subject/object divide - rather, its an aesthetic of
    inference method used in geometry - intellectual art.

    > To introduce objectivity as a drive for intellectual value is to
    > reinforce the geometric method. But this method is not one of subjects
    > and objects - it is an intellectual aesthetic in response to, and in a
    > relationship with DQ. Evidence for this is found in the manifold
    > geometry's and dimensions available to intellectual artists today,
    > (mathematicians and physicians). So, paradoxically, mathematics now
    > appears to be subjective, if one allows any discussion of subjects and
    > objects into the MoQ.

    If this means that there's an aesthetic component to theories of high
    quality, I agree. Otherwise, I can't imagine what you're referring to.
    I think Pirsig is much more of an "intellectual artist" than most
    doctors I know.

    squonk: That is what i am saying. And Northrop says so too. And any
    mathematician would agree. Thus, we can say that intellect produces art.

    > Sadly, i have also witnessed the static intellectual patterns of an
    > older generation holding onto outmoded concepts and ideas. It is largely
    > to these people that integration is aimed, but it is unfortunate that
    > such integration is not valued from a MoQ perspective, and appears to be
    > continually misinterpreted.

    Well, it's easy to accuse anyone who can't follow you reasoning or
    disagreeing with your approach as being out of touch because of
    outmoded ideas. But, I would say if you can't express your ideas so
    anyone with at least a high school education (in a decent school) can
    understand, regardless of his current age, then the problem is yours,
    not the reader's.

    squonk: I agree. But if i may say so, i feel a part of the problem lies in
    the total time spent fighting and debating the MoQ and not flying with it?
    Please remember that i have been totally with the MoQ from day one, and feel very
    frustrated when no one talks my language.
    I cannot stress this enough Platt, i am totally with the MoQ and feel things
    can move foreword, but how can that be accomplished if all that people ever do
    is knock down? Please note i do not wish to deny anyone doing this, but where
    are those who i can work with? Where are those who for the hell of it want to
    fly with this and see what can be done? Is that such a dreadful wish?

    > There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ. If you go with this, i
    > assure you it makes things more coherent.

    So far, the coherent part escapes me. But I encourage you to keep
    trying to explain your ideas because, as I said, I think your aesthetic
    approach is significant to a full understanding of the MOQ.


    squonk: Well, thanks for the encouragement. I appreciate it.

    You cannot make yourself feel something you do not feel, but you can
    make yourself do right in spite of your feelings. - Pearl S. Buck

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:02:43 BST