From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:09:40 BST
> 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.
Platt
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
4.
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 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:13:28 BST