[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hi Mark  -- 

Mark: Hello Ham.
Mark: 'DQ and sq are experienced differently, sq is the known and dead in a  
creative sense while DQ is always new.'
Ham: 'I don't know what this  means.'
Ham later: 'I didn't intend to "worry you" by admitting that I didn't  
understand your statement. I just saw no point in trying to address  it.'
Mark uses music as a way of trying to help Ham understand the MoQ  position:
Mark:
> But we have music to save us!
> Let us attend a concert  and examine our experience of it
> in terms of DQ and sq?
> The lead  violinist plays her part in a striking and unexpected
> way.
> You  have heard the piece many times before, but what is
> this? Her approach  is exceptional.
> What has just happened in DQ/sq terms?
> Your old  experience of the piece is sq.
> The new exciting experience is DQ  experienced in the moment.

Ham: I can appreciate what you're trying to  do, but still don't see the 
distinction.
 
Mark: I will try to help you see the distinction between DQ and sq.
 
Ham: Did I like the piece before hearing this new interpretation? If so, in  
your terms, it had "high Quality".
 
Mark: Yes. Before the concert begins the piece is a static part of your  
history.
 
Ham: A fresh interpretation is more interesting, more pleasing  
aesthetically, perhaps giving me a "higher
Quality" experience.
 
Mark: Wait a moment please. The new experience is as yet unstructured as  
part of your static experience. It has not been experienced yet.
The concert begins, and the cutting edge of your experience is before  you.
The soloist may be rubbish?
If so, there is little in the way of Dynamic experience. In fact, you may  be 
bored silly.
However, the new experience may be startling.
The soloist may be so goo you forget all sense of time and space - you are  
experiencing DQ.
A boring solo does little to add to your sq history of experience. It was,  
'Instantly forgettable.'
A startling solo adds to your sq history of experience. It was,  
'Unforgettable.'
 
Ham: Where is the DQ/sq split?
 
Mark: DQ is experienced in the instant. sq is after the event.
 
Ham: Is it actuated by the violinist or myself?
 
Mark: In a Substance ontology your question is valid.
I would have to use the language of Substance ontology in order  to address 
it to your satisfaction.
The MoQ is not a Substance based ontology.
The MoQ includes DQ and sq - with sq divided into 4 evolutionary  related 
levels.
Substances are re-describe in terms of patterns of sq left in the wake of  
Dynamic Quality.
Now to answer your question using DQ and sq:
As all sq patterns share the same Dynamic source, the violinist and you  have 
the same Dynamic source.
It is only after the Dynamic experience that static differentiation's are  
set up.
So, If the violinist is exceptional, you both merge in the cutting edge of  
DQ - you lose all sense of time and space and later you say, 'That performance  
was sublime.'
 
Ham: How would I know it when I heard it?  (I guess I'm just in an sq  
plateau.)
 
Mark: Your perspective is founded on a Substance based ontology within the  
Western philosophical tradition.
You are analysing the situation after the event.
Fundamental to your analysis is a Substance ontology of 'things' not  
'events'.
The MoQ may be said to be more of a process ontology where you and the  
violinist are emerged in one process rather than two separate 'things' which are  
causally linked.
 
Ham: I do like some compositions "better than others"
though.  I am  a romanticist and enjoy R. Strauss, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky,
Schuman,  Mendlessohn, Rachmaninoff, etc., more than the Baroque and
contemporary  composers.
 
Mark: Have you been researching me Ham?

> DQ is experienced as the cutting edge of NOW from which
>  old sq patterns are extruded.
> Understand the magnitude of what this is  saying: You ARE
> nothing but static quality patterns being extruded from  the
> immediate DQ cutting edge of experience, Ham.

Ham: How can I  respond to assertions based on official MoQ doxology without
offending  you?
 
Mark: I shall not be offended.
 
Ham: By replying that I appreciate the "magnitude" of what this
is  saying but not the sense of it?
 
Mark: Perhaps, and this is not a dig at you or anything, but perhaps you  are 
the eternal mechanic who strives to invent names and new relationships  
between things? For you, in order for there to be sense, you enjoy the aesthetic  
of the eternal mechanic; austere, clean, well proportioned, economical.
And yet, at bottom, what you need more than anything else is that sense of  
aesthetic.

> The ontology is basic: sq patterns - evolutionary  related.
> The oldest ones are inorganic (energy mass) the less older  ones
> are biological (meat to use a filthy phrase some people find  useful)
> more recent patterns are social (those patterns which order  and
> advance groups, the earliest of which may be termed rituals,  later
> - just laws, institutions, etc.) and most recent   intellectual
> (science, logic - including maths, philosophy and abstract  thought.)
> YOU are all of these patterns: Your feet are inorganic atoms  and
> molecules arranged biologically into flesh and bone; your feet  walk
> to the voting office in order to elect representatives in a four  yearly
> ritual of social conformity; your intellect analyses the  proportion
> of votes and relationships between them.
> It is an  interesting philosophical question as to whether you as a
> particular and  unique arrangement of sq patterns is passive to DQ?

Ham: First off, I do  not consider myself an arrangement of patterns. My
biological organism is  composed of cellular components whose functions are
related to their  molecular structure. The nerve tissues responsible for
integrating my  thoughts and feelings may be "patterned" throughout my
cerebro-nervous  system, but they are no more "me" than my big toe or wisdom
tooth.
 
Mark: You are describing the biological level of sq patterns.
These evolved from previous inorganic patterns like mass and energy.
There is more to Ham than this!

Ham: In short, I am not fashioned  according to "recent social and 
intellectual
patterns", whatever that is  supposed to mean.
 
Mark: Language is a social patterns.
You speak US English.
This is a good example of your social patterns as the imitation of your  
parents behaviour.
Philosophy is intellectual patterns.
You enjoy philosophy.
This is a good example of your intellectual patterns manipulating the  
patterns you encountered in your culture.
So, in the social and intellectual sense you are influenced by recent  
patterns.
 
Ham: My genetic patterns date back
to pre-historic time and my account  for the bald spot on the back of my 
head...
 
Mark: I would not argue with you.

Ham: ...and, possibly, for some of my current impatience with this kind  of 
dialogue.
 
Mark: Maybe?
 
Ham: Otherwise, I am a unique individual with a modicum of learning ability  
and a
will of my own, just as I presume you are.
 
Mark: Our respective freedoms are found in our ability (or willingness) to  
open of to DQ.

> An examination of High creativity activity such as  musicianship,
excellence
> in sport, abstract thought, etc., suggests  that all these people drop
patterns
> and merge in the moment of  Dynamic Quality. This is my personal area of
> interest regarding the MoQ  so i will not push it.

Ham: A wise decision.  If I'm about to "merge  in the moment of Dynamic 
Quality",
I'd prefer to prepare for it in  advance.
 
Mark: I see you read allot of Oscar Wilde then Ham?

more to  follow...