Re: MD Lila's Child

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 16:06:08 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "Re: MD novel/computer heirarchy"

    Hi Squonk,

    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.
    > 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.

    I think I understand the static part although "repertoire" is an
    unusual word in that context, making comprehension of your meaning
    unnecessarily more difficult. Your "dynamic component" definition
    escapes me completely. Is there a simpler, more direct, more ordinary
    way to express the idea?

    > 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>

    Now this I understand. Humor always means DQ to me because it's essence
    is to break up static intellectual patterns but still make sense. It
    also always comes as a surprise, one of the tests for DQ. Humor,
    paradox, art--all close to the fires of Truth, all paths to the DQ
    experience. Do you agree?

    > 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.'

    Sorry. I don't get it.

    > 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.'

    Pirsig has some interesting ideas on what constitutes "self." But,
    that's for another day.

    > 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.

    There's no good reason I can think of to invent your own language.
    Pirsig didn't find it necessary. Why should we? In fact, inventing your own
    language prevents others from understanding you. We can only fly with you
    when we're on the same airplane or rocketship or whatever means of transport
    you prefer.

    > 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?

    Well, there are a lot of naysayers out there, mostly asking in their
    pragmatic way, "What good is it?" not fully realizing, yet, that they
    are making a Quality call from which they cannot escape. But, patience
    my friend. Revolutions on the order of the MOQ take time. At least
    we're not threatened with the rack like poor Galileo. Have faith. Your
    contributions to this forum are making a difference. We're carving out
    a new worldview, chipping away little by little at the huge granite
    block of SOM.

    > 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?

    Not at all. But some of us are slower to climb aboard than others.
    Being patient with us will help, as will going out of your way to make
    your ideas as crystal clear as you possibly can. As they say, to lead
    you must follow.


    The freedom of conscience is a right so sacred that even the name of
    tolerance involves a species of tyranny. - Comte

    > > 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

    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 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 16:04:42 BST