[MD] Primer

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

hey mark,

Gav:
even ZAMM was picking and choosing mark.
some analogies are better than  others: choose them,
first. next best second...etc. that was the  idea
anyway.
 
Mark 8-10-06:
I recognise my own words.
The best analogies, in my view, are chosen on aesthetic grounds; we are  back 
to aesthetics again.
And this includes abstract symbolic structures.
ZMM is an exceptional work of art, i think allot of us would agree?
If ZMM had been shit people may have been less inclined to listen about  
Quality; the book is an example of Quality.
Our Primer should be an example of Quality also, as you  suggest.

> 
> Gav:
> that is why the code of art trumps  the other codes,
> because the  DQ/sq level 
> is more...  ...moral...
>  
> 
> Mark 7-6-06:
> I think the MoQ  says sq patterns which are more
> Dynamic are more moral, and   
> art is closer to DQ than rigid patterns.
> Why not talk of Art  and Aesthetics instead of
> mysticism then?
> At least Art is a  creative activity everyone can
> relate to, but talk of  
>  mysticism is divisive and elitist.
> People can be more or less creative  but not more or
> less mystic so it seems?

Gav:
so the DQ/sq split is sufficient in establishing the
primacy of  experience? perhaps you are right.
 
Mark 8-10-06:
The uneducated, children and traditional artists already know  what our 
Primer is trying to convey. From personal experience: my 'brother in  law to be' 
has not had much education but we may discuss many aspects  of experience and 
Quality brings us together. Even when he's talking about  things i find 
repulsive, like hunting Rabbit or Hare with his dogs, i can see  the Quality.
But our Primer would not be understood by my brother in law to be.
Our Primer will be read by many for whom Western cultural  traditions are 
blind to Quality.
My question is this: Will placing Quality at the head of a Primer help  these 
people?
 
Gav:
it seems to me that starting with DQ/sq begs the
question about  what 'q' is. i thought the primary
level would  deal with that in a  'showing' rather than
'saying' manner.
 
Mark 8-10-06:
That's a big task - to show what Quality is at the head of a Primer.
In my 2005 conference paper i produced a diagram placing Quality at the top  
with DQ/sq underneath. But i was talking to a room full of people who knew 
what  that was all about so i felt comfortable with it - my aim on that occasion 
was  to suggest a possible extension of MoQ ontology - the bit below sq.
But who is our audience now?
I feel one should be sensitive and empathic for one's audience and try to  
understand their point of view.
My bias is toward those who are locked into traditional Western thought and  
how they may see, or not see Quality - which is to say  intellectually.
These are tough nuts to crack because they are so rigid in their beliefs  and 
cultural networks of reinforcements, both social and  intellectual.

>  
> Gav: '<some> ...representations  of Quality... ...are
> more  correct or 
> accurate, mystically  speaking, than others.'

mark:
> I think what you are saying here  is, 'Intellectual
> representations of  
> Quality are  aesthetic.'
> You see, i avoid any mention of mysticism by talking
>  instead about Art and  
> the Aesthetic.
> I've been doing this  ever since i joined the MD (and
> MF) but no-one has  
>  followed me.
> Zen and the ART of motorcycle maintenance!

Gav:
yeah some analogies are better than others. but in a
strictly  metaphysical sense the more divisions the
more static and the less dynamic or  'real' it is. more
divisions = less verisimilitude.
 
Mark 8-10-06:
The statement that the Real is that which is more Dynamic introduces a  
fascinating question.
If we follow this through, then Reality is pure DQ or Quality, and anything  
less (more differentiated you suggest) is by definition lacking.
Now i want you to understand that I understand what you are saying; i have  
felt the enormity of this realisation in my life.
I've had to deal with it, and sometimes it's been damn painful, and  
continues to be at times.
But there are millions of people who are removed from such insights, and i  
wonder if it matters?
A shift in emphasis toward life's mundane patterns as creative  art may do 
much to bring Quality into our culture.
Back to the Primer...
Can we Prime the Metaphysics of Quality with an emphasis on Art in such a  
way as to implicitly indicate Quality as Primary reality Gav?
 

>  
> Gav:
> it seems good to me - vital actually  -  to reinforce
> the  primacy of the 
> experiential over  the intellectual.
>  

> > 
> Gav:
> a lot of  our probs stem from the fact that we  are
> putting analytic stuff at  the top: dividing stuff up
> FIRST, instead of  SECOND.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Mark 7-6-06:
> If all people did  was talk about DQ and sq all the
> time i would be as happy  
>  as the day is long.
> How about you?
> The fact that people hardly  ever do is problematic
> IMHO. If people talk  
> about DQ they  may appreciate the relationship
> between it and   art.
>

Gav:
i agree with you on the importance and universality  of
the Dq/sq analogy, especially when DQ is equated with
creative,  pre-intellectual experience.

what about the static levels? are they best  used in
conjunction with the DQ/sq picture, or as a separate
level? what  is your feeling here?
 
Mark 8-10-06:
Levels are sq patterns within the MoQ; they are the Encyclopaedia.
DQ is outside the Encyclopaedia. (Our Primer has a problem here.)
Having said that, evolution is Dynamic and all patterns are evolving, so  the 
static Encyclopaedia is expanding all the time and any static snapshot of it  
is already outdated.
sq patterns are fluid and evolving all the time, especially at the higher  
levels which are closer to DQ. The older static patterns like the inorganic are  
almost dead evolutionary speaking.
Art is about the most Dynamic activity Humans can 'be' i feel; this is  where 
sq patterns are challenged.
Others may disagree.
I was watching a programme about a Japanese sword making recently  and a 
Western observer was rather condescending about the Japanese  gentleman stoking 
his furnace when he said he was waiting for the spirit to  arrive, and he would 
know when it arrived by the sound. I think what that  japanese artist was 
saying was that he was waiting for the furnace to be  thermally 'just right' for 
him to work on his material with least resistance,  and the sound of the 
furnace would change until it reached  the characteristic sound of 'just rightness' 
in exactly the same way a  motorcycle engine tuner can hear optimum 
performance. These people get to know  this through experience of excellence. That's DQ.
 
> Mark 7-6-06:
> If you're telling me i need a Primer after 14  years
> of thinking about the  
> MoQ i may as well go  fishing.
> The problem with that is, i now know fishing is an
> art  form aiming at DQ.
> Maybe that's our Primer right there: Go fish  and
> become a better person.

Gav:
okay if you're not a fish.
no i think YOU should help create a  primer, or are you
more into hording your superior  metaphysical
understanding? only half-kidding. if you think this
stuff is  important, which obviously you do, then i am
saying that a primer is a good  idea, better than
spending hours on individual difficult  parochial
discussions.
maybe i am just in too much of a rush!!!!
 
Mark 8-10-06:
I understand your frustration, if that is an appropriate way of  putting it?
I think the roots of this position go back to Bodvar Skutvik. He  established 
a 'tone' here close to the MOQ.org's inception directed at  questioning the 
validity of the MoQ and that attracted many others who  enjoyed pursuing the 
same path.
I may be wrong?
I wish contributors would USE the MoQ to illuminate problems in the  hope of 
dissolving or resolving them.
Is this one of the aims of the Primer?
Does the Primer aim to encourage use of the MoQ?
Or is the aim to help people become mystics?
Or both?

Gav:
yeah. maybe i am barking up the wrong tree. think  i
might go fishing after all.

cheers
gav
 
Mark 8-10-06:
I reckon we may be close to the start of that Primer.
Keep going please?
I hope i've not put you off?
Love,
Mark