From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 18:56:09 BST
Mark: We may participate....
what is this 'we' that participates then?
I like participate, but being human is really therefore, in
some sense, inseparable from DQ I feel. Only the unconscious,sleeping,
unevolving, law-like, limited, material?, can be truly static.
Yet patterns are unavoidably important, but so is the free
and dynamic element that is the essence of timing.
In a tennis stroke do I stay back for a groung stroke
or move up for a volley, do I hit my volley at the perfect
moment, a pattern can be known only synchronically,
activity is always diachronic and a matter of dynamic timing.
DQ/freedom/timing/activity/event/time go together, patterns
embody excellence I would say, even the virus is
an impressive achievement, the problems begin with incoherence,
the separation that exists between patterns and their capacity
to come into conflict. Would you agree?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: MD What have you freed lately?
Hi Platt,
You write:
Mere openness to dynamic improvement, while admirable, accomplishes little
unless one takes action as a result to replace a ubiquitous static pattern
with a better one offering more freedom.
...and continue:
I don't buy the notion that freedom in the MOQ is a 'sweet spot.' Freedom
in the MOQ is DQ, a moral force whose "only perceived good is freedom and
its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided
fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of
life." (Lila, 9) But your reminder of the need for static latching and
possibility of degeneracy is well taken.
Mark 21-4-04: The 'sweet spot' is coherence, and coherence is excellence. Excellence is high aesthetic. It is the goal of Art.
When excellent, what is there to choose?
To be less excellent? That is to become more static - degenerate.
To be more excellent? Surely this is not possible?
To maintain excellence? This seems our likely choice?
Thus, freedom to choose appears to be modified in excellence? Freedom means something different for the less than excellent?
I feel you assume it is imperative for freedom to be available all the time. I disagree, for to grasp what coherence is, is to see a relationship between DQ and SQ which balances order and freedom in such a way as to touch Unity.
I agree with Steve when he reveals the misleading nature of, 'you' in the question. There is no 'you' in coherence. 'You' arrive later, as a static narrative. And it therefore seems more appropriate to ask, 'What has freed you lately?'
Coherence frees you, motivated by DQ, and balanced in SQ-SQ tension.
Metaphysically, i agree with you say Platt regarding DQ. But our experience is patterned to some degree, and to abolish patterns is to invite disaster? So, if patterned experience is to be accommodated in the best and most appropriate way, would you agree that this may be achieved in the pursuit of excellence?
Those who claim, 'I am excellent' miss the point?
This is why the Ancient Greeks awarded wreaths in Olympic games; the wreath symbolises the ephemeral nature of excellence - the wreath is glorious but soon withers away. Today, we award a shinny Gold medal, in a vain attempt to cling to a moment which has past.
'It' is excellent, not 'I.' We may participate, but cannot own it.
All the best,
Mark
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 Apr 21 2004 - 19:09:00 BST