From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 21:05:35 BST
sq: This hits the nail on the head in all respects in my view.
There was a nail?
>From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Lila's Child
>Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:24:24 EDT
>
>Hi Platt and Squonk
>
>This is a good thread! If I may throw in some supporting Pirsig quotes?
>
>Platt:
>We agree on a lot, Squonk. But here I must question your "artistic
>creations of intellect"
>
>Platt:
>So, artistic creation doesn't come from intellect but from that sense
>within each of us that responds to the creative force of DQ. It's known
>to the us as a sudden flash of insight, the light bulb going off, the
>surprising connection we make between two or three heretofore unrelated
>patterns.
>
>Paul:
>To add weight to Squonk's aesthetic interpretation of intellect, but to
>clarify the DQ-SQ relationship at work that Platt alludes to, check out
>this passage from ZMM:
>
>"Poincaré then hypothesized that this selection is made by what he
>called the "subliminal self," an entity that corresponds exactly with
>what Phĉdrus called preintellectual awareness. The subliminal self,
>Poincaré said, looks at a large number of solutions to a problem, but
>only the interesting ones break into the domain of consciousness.
>Mathematical solutions are selected by the subliminal self on the basis
>of "mathematical beauty," of the harmony of numbers and forms, of
>geometric elegance. "This is a true esthetic feeling which all
>mathematicians know," Poincaré said, "but of which the profane are so
>ignorant as often to be tempted to smile." But it is this harmony, this
>beauty, that is at the center of it all.
>
>Poincaré made it clear that he was not speaking of romantic beauty, the
>beauty of appearances which strikes the senses. He meant classic beauty,
>which comes from the harmonious order of the parts, and which a pure
>intelligence can grasp, which gives structure to romantic beauty and
>without which life would be only vague and fleeting, a dream from which
>one could not distinguish one's dreams because there would be no basis
>for making the distinction. It is the quest of this special classic
>beauty, the sense of harmony of the cosmos, which makes us choose the
>facts most fitting to contribute to this harmony. It is not the facts but
>the relation of things that results in the universal harmony that is the
>sole objective reality.
>
>What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live is that
>this world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through the
>communications that we have with other men we receive from them
>ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know that these reasonings do not
>come from us and at the same time we recognize in them, because of their
>harmony, the work of reasonable beings like ourselves. And as these
>reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations, we think we may
>infer that these reasonable beings have seen the same thing as we; thus
>it is that we know we haven't been dreaming. It is this harmony, this
>quality if you will, that is the sole basis for the only reality we can
>ever know"
>
>Platt:
>Seems to me we're able to draw upon a lot more than a limited
>repertoire of patterns to express ourselves, especially if you think of
>individual words as individual patterns.
>
>Paul:
>I think "repertoire" is closely linked with the "analogues" described in
>the following passage; therefore we seem to have a cultural and
>individual repertoire with which to respond to Quality. Is this how you
>see it Squonk?
>
>squonk: Very much so. I like the term repertoire for its artistic flavour.
>All patterns, inorganic, organic, social and intellectual share a living
>relationship with DQ - and the best coherent relationships have high
>aesthetic
>appeal.
>
>"Men invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an
>understanding of what they themselves are. You know something and then
>the Quality stimulus hits and then you try to define the Quality
>stimulus, but to define it all you've got to work with is what you know.
>So your definition is made up of what you know. It's an analogue to what
>you already know. It has to be. It can't be anything else. And the
>mythos grows this way. By analogies to what is known before. The mythos
>is a building of analogues upon analogues upon analogues." ZMM Ch28
>
>Cheers
>
>Paul
>
>Hello Paul and Platt,
>This hits the nail on the head in all respects in my view. It is the
>aesthetic that drives our intellectual patterns - the Quality of their
>harmony.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 21:06:26 BST