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

Mon Dec 18 14:22:54 PST 2006

Hi SA,

Thanks for asking. I would appreciate it if we gave Mark some time to  
reply first.  I'm not sure if he will however because recently, as  
you know, he has expressed a desire to leave MD.

Have you read his Edge of Chaos essay or his MOQ Conference paper?  
They can both be found on moq.org.  This is actually a continuation  
from our discussion under the thread name 'A formalised Code of  
Art' .  Feel free to read any of them.

Or, if you think you've got a sufficient handle on the conversation,  
without reading any of that, then once Mark replies, or it seems he's  
left, post away!

Cheers SA,

David.

On 19/12/2006, at 3:43 AM, Heather Perella wrote:

> 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
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/