At 08:07 PM 10/28/2007, you wrote: > > > [Marsha Previously] > > >. .... .. ... ....., > > >. ....., .... ....., .... ....., . ......, > > >... .... > > > [SA previously] > > > Hey Marsha, this is the kind of picture I see > > >when I write. Painting is much more immediate at > > >times. > > [Marsha] > > And not immediate enough at others. > > > Maybe art, any art, as you mention at times, >becomes too static, too intellectual from one time to >another. But too static might be less dynamic, yet >still not stuck. Too static would be another way to >say a static pattern. Sure these words are tip-toeing >around and what I'm saying can be put another way. I >give it try. What I'm saying is direct experience of >any art will flow, be dynamic and then become static >to our current direct experience. When I write, and >rewrite, then type it on the computer to redraft it >again, to further clarify, and reclarify, what becomes >dynamic is that first rough draft, but I still don't >want to lose understanding so others might be able to >know what I'm saying. That doesn't have to be the >only goal. Private works can mean much for me, and >nothing to other people. "So what's this have to do >with immediate experience?" I ask myself. I guess it >depends on what stage in the process I'm in.
SA, Your last sentence has brought questions. What is this 'it'? What is this 'stage'? What is this 'depends'? Towards what end? The symbol of the Tao comes naturally to mind. I wonder what it looks like when it is spinning. Does it have a beginning or end? Or is there only process? And isn't desire a part of process? Marsha 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/
