[MD] Formalising the Code of Art (Rekindling with Mark Maxwell)

[Heather Perella]

David H., I wouldn't mind chimming in here on some
points, but if you want me to wait for Mark to
responsed first, I will wait.  If you want me to stay
out, I will.  Also, is there something in the MoQ
archives on Mark Maxwell or something Mark Maxwell
wrote that you would want me to read first, I will.

thanks.

rain fallin', not fallin', fallin', not fallin' -
today,
SA



> Hi Mark,
> 
> As vowed, if you don't mind I've responded to your
> comments from two  
> months ago.
> 
> To remove the clutter, I've taken all your comments
> from the 16-10-06  
> and responded where necessary.
> 
> 
> ==PATTERNISING DQ==
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: But if COA = DM = DQ that is
> precisely what you are  
> doing, unless as you suggest, it's the conditions
> we're spelling  out.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> I wasn't sure what you meant exactly by 'conditions'
> but you spelled  
> it out for me later on.
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: Conditions = sq description of
> circumstances where DQ  
> has been observed to operate.
> I totally agree DQ is pure empiricism, but a
> formalised anything is  
> dealing  with sq. See?
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> DQ is not pure empiricism. The MOQ is pure
> empricism. To be precise,  
> a formalised anything is *dealing with* Quality,
> both DQ and static  
> quality.  When *something is* formalised it becomes
> sq, which is good  
> as it is at pointing to DQ.
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: I am certain DQ is pure empiricism.
> That DQ appears  
> where it  does is a reflection upon our static
> understanding.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> That DQ appears where it does has nothing to do with
> our static  
> understanding.   Once you take notice of DQ, DQ
> becomes sq, so DQ did  
> not appear!  We can only hope to allude to DQ and
> its existence  
> through analogy and the like.  As I said above, the
> better these  
> analogies, the better the sq.
> 
> 
> ==BENEFITS OF COHERENCE==
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: That's why Coherence is more sq. But
> it may be a  
> appreciable addition to our sq understanding?
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> To put your question another way.  Does Coherence
> IMHO point to the  
> moon well? No. This is because within Lila and the
> structure of the  
> MOQ there is already a concept which fits your
> desired goal of  
> 'formulating a sq description where DQ shines
> through'.  IMHO Rta  
> answers this call of being an excellent finger
> pointer, because if  
> done rightly, removes the finger altogether.
> 
> In case you have forgotten, below is a paste of a
> comment of mine  
> from the 15-10-06 regarding rta.
> 
> "Of course, that is not to say there there won't be
> times when we  
> cannot see DQ.  Zen meditation or something of this
> ilk helps to  
> reduce these times through perfection of sq
> patterns(rta) which  
> reveals the DQ that has been there all along."
> 
> A perfected pattern is coherent. If you want to
> contrive a situation  
> where there is nothing but DQ, simply perfect a sq
> pattern.  The  
> easiest and most simple activity to perfect is to
> 'just sit'.  Don't  
> DO anything, just sit.  If you sit there for long
> enough, you will  
> notice your mind winding down, and eventually once
> it has wound down  
> completely all that is left is 'just sitting'. It is
> at this point  
> enlightenment occurs.
> 
> -------
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: Thanks for not attributing to be an
> evil. ;) Coherence  
> is sq  alright which gets me out of trouble.
> I'm still not happy about your notion that
> conditions are always  
> right for  Dynamic morality.
> Upon reflection, that is to say, upon reviewing our
> experience  
> history, DQ  may be seen to be more present under
> certain   
> circumstances.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> That is because the sq, the analogies of DQ, are
> better. DQ is always  
> present.  Thus the conditions for Dynamic morality
> are always  
> present.  There is no *more* DQ.  DQ is not an
> amount! The 'more' you  
> seem to be referring to is sq.
> 
> -------
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: The Lila quote above insists this is
> so. Here's an   
> interesting quote from ch. 2 of Lila:
> 'Some of the slips were actually about this topic:
> random access  and  
> Quality.  The two are closely related.  Random
> access is at the   
> essence of organic growth, in which cells, like
> post-office boxes,  
> are  relatively
> independent.  Cities are based on random access.  
> Democracies are  
> founded on it.  The free market system, free speech,
> and  the growth  
> of science are all based on it.  A library is one of
>  civilization's  
> most powerful tools
> precisely because of its card-catalog  trays.'
> A Library has a sq aspect and a Dynamic function,
> and so too have the  
> other  examples given by Pirsig in this quote.
> I ask you consider this carefully.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> I have, and I agree with RMP.  And that is why I
> responded.
> 
> "That resulting sq patterns are more Dynamic,
> versatile than  others  
> I don't deny.  That these patterns work with some of
> the more  static  
> patterns which prevent degeneration I'll also agree
> on, as does RMP  
> in  the paragraph you quoted above."
> 
> -------
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: I think some have been observed and
> have even entired  
> common
> language. That's what the sweet spot thing is all 
> about.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> No fundamental conditions have been observed.  You
> could say they  
> were observed, but always After the fact, thus they
> are not so  
> fundamental.  The only thing which is fundamental is
> DQ but it is not  
> a thing at all.
> 
> -------
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: Yes, it seems we've got to the bottom
> of this. The  
> conditions are observed AFTER DQ.
> The conditions are sq. This does not invalidate
> Coherence i feel.
> 
> David 19-12-06:
> I don't think it 'invalidates' Coherence either. 
> But coherence is  
> more sq.  Is it good? I don't think that it offers
> anything already  
> in the MOQ.  Coherence as a 'grand concept of the
> MOQ' confuses  
> matters as I have said already.
> 
> -------
> 
> Mark 16-10-06: This is what i am attributing to you.
> It sounds   
> contradictory to state DM is always followed but
> sometimes it turns  
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com