Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:09:40 BST

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

    > 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 - 21:13:28 BST