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

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

I have said things already.  Here is the archive post link of them in  
case you missed it while gone.

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2006- 
December/008745.html

Awaiting your response.

Cheers,

David.

On 22/12/2006, at 7:43 AM, Squonkonguitar at aol.com wrote:

>
> 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
>
> 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/