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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello David, SA and Heather,
Always happy to help, but would be more interested to hear what you  guys 
have to say.
You may be able to think this all through in a way which is more  helpful?
Anything i say may hinder your creativity...
 
At your service,
Love,
Mark
 
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