[MD] Natural or supernatural?

[David M]

Hi DMB

Let's see if I can try some more angles.

Actually Steiner takes a very detailed look at
the difference between invention and creation
and the relationship of the latter to notions of nothingness,
the void, freedom, transcendence, etc.

Another way to look at this thing is to see the actual
as being everything static and behind us, i.e in the past.
What does the future mean unless it means that we
do not know what it will be, yet we have many ideas
about what it might be.

What does it mean that we won the war unless it was
possible that we may have lost it.

Would 'Waiting for Godot' have anything like the meaning
it does if it was not for what id does not say, what Beckett
leaves out.

In politics, is there anything more important than that TINA
is a lie (there is no alternative).

All existence is about choice, perhaps not always
conscious choice, but choice, choices between what
is possible, which means we go along one path and
abandon all others. Have you never abandoned any
possibilities in your life Mr DMB?

If there is no choice then there is only mechanism.

Any use? Or are you still just a mechanist?

Best wishes, of course, you may choose to disagree
or find this trivial. You are lucky to have such a rich
array of options and possibilities.

David M






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Natural or supernatural?


> David M suggested "Grammars of Creation" by George Steiner.
>
> dmb says:
> Thanks. Looks interesting. Wish I had the time. Steiner seems to be doing
> some very Pirsigian work there. I mean, the fusion of creativity and
> invention echos ZAMM and the SODV paper, where mechanics are artists and
> physicists are too. Its a parallel to the idea in ZAMM that, once upon a
> time in ancient Greece, there was no serious distinction between creative
> processes and manufacturing techniques, if you will.
>
> David M said:
> What about all the boats you don't build but could have? Better still lets
> say cars. What about the cars that we could have built, far less polluting
> cars perhaps. A real, possible, important and missed opportunity but
> certainly not actual.
>
> dmb says:
> I just don't see the point. You seem to be using "actual" to describe
> concrete, physical things and opposing that to plans and imaginings. But 
> I'm
> saying this distinction breaks down in the MOQ because  mental images,
> fiberglass boats and the creative process itself are all actual and real 
> and
> a part of experience. Maybe you're leaving some crucial premise out or
> something. I mean, it seems you think this stuff about the possible is 
> deep
> and profound. I just don't see that. Feel free to help me out there, eh?
>
> David M said:
> I would agree, creativity is not something that transcends experience it 
> is
> at the heart of experience of course, experience can be divided into DQ 
> and
> SQ for us Pirsigians. Of course, experience transcends what is merely
> actual.
>
> dmb interupts:
> In what sense does "experience transcend what is merely actual"? I don't 
> see
> why any experience should be considered less than actual. How is it not an
> actual experience. And if its within the realm of experience, then why are
> you calling it transcendent? Because it transcends "material" reality?
>
> David M:
> Sartre's favorite example of the significance of the possible that is not
> actual is the experience of going to meet a friend who does not turn up at
> the bar. This creates an experience of the absence of the friend, your
> experience is simply of an empty bar, but its experienced meaning is
> captured
> in what was possible but not actual.
>
> dmb says:
> I don't see the "significance" of the "experienced meaning" of your 
> friends
> absence. Again, I get the impression that you take this to be deep and
> profound. I don't get that. All I see here is a disappointed guy getting
> drunk with strangers. ...Imagine the possibilites. ;-)
>
> David M
> For me, existence is this very journey through the possible, what we call
> actual is simply the path and journey you are able to undertake.
>
> dmb says:
> Again, there must be something you're not telling me. I can see that 
> you're
> trying to say something about the very nature of existence, but it just
> looks like a bad birthday card to me.
>
> David M said:
> What is god other than the formless nothing that is all potential and
> nothing actual? Which is not a conception Plato would have been too
> comfortable with.
>
> dmb says:
> God is the formless nothing of pure potential? Wow. That's deep, man.
>
> ...Can I buy some pot from you?
>
> David M
> Hope you enjoyed your possible but not actual whiskey.
>
> dmb says:
> Not having drinks with you created such a meaningful absence that I'm
> virtually hung over and my holographic vomit looks just like a painting by
> Jackson Pollack. It really makes you think, huh?
>
> Yea, sometimes I try a little too hard to be funny.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows 
> Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
>
> 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/
>