From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 20:57:30 BST
Hi Squonk,
Part II
Hello Platt,
S
> > Intellectual patterns have a dynamic component and a static component.
P
> 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.
S
> 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?
squonk: Static part: Think of a musician having a repertoire of tunes upon
which to draw for any given performance? By analogy, you and I have a repertoire
of static intellectual patterns upon which to draw at any given moment. I
hope this helps?
Dynamic part: DQ can reorganise the static repertoire into a new tune - to
use the music analogy again. I hope this helps also?
> 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?
squonk: Very much so. Absolutely. 100%
May we say that a comedian, like the improvising musician, has a static
repertoire? In the case of the comedian, he has a repertoire of gags and humorous
observations upon which to draw? If he cracks a new joke, he is flying with DQ?
Of course, some music composers and comedy writers can deliver the art but
not perform well? Others write and perform equally well?
> 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.
squonk: Chien (i think! It's been a long time) is French for Dog. Mon is
French for My. Mon rhymes with One, and Chien rhymes with chin, has rhymes with
his - creating an internal tension in the sentence. one me one dog one flea one
chin.
The sentence was supposed to be turned into an example of how a repertoire of
symbols can change while making sense and be funny. I need a new gag writer!
> 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.
squonk: Well, squonk is the sum total of many patterns over multiple levels.
And i am not alone, etc...
> 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.
squonk: I fully take your point. However, and i do not wish to be difficult
or argumentative here, but the terms i use are English. It's perhaps a bit
harsh upon me to suggest that i have invented the term 'repertoire' for example?
I wished to be expressive, but i understand i also need to convey a simple
message. From now on i shall concentrate upon the message, and allot less on
flowery 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?
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.
squonk: Thanks for the encouragement. I feel better for it.
> 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.
Platt
The freedom of conscience is a right so sacred that even the name of
tolerance involves a species of tyranny. - Comte
squonk: Patience. Yes, indeed.
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 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 20:58:00 BST