dmb said to Squonk: ...I understand that these dynamic functions are found within the levels. I don't think anyone said otherwise and I don't know what you mean by saying they're "not just between whole levels".
Squonk replied: This is all very blar blar blar, look at me, i'm good at spouting what i've read. Go to the top of the class. dmb says: Dude, you have self-esteem issues. And you're making it awfully hard for me to be polite here. Squonk continued: Your reply has been to consistently insist that the hierarchy of levels determines which patterns are more dynamic: dmb says: By analogy, I've said there are seven continents and you've construed that to mean that I deny the existence of nations. Saying the four levels display an increasingly dynamic function is not to say there aren't increasingly dynamic functions within the levels. Kingdoms and tribes are both social but one is more highly evolved and dynamic, for example. Or, as Pirsig points out, cell division and sexual reproduction are both biological but the latter is more evolved and versatile. I didn't say otherwise, don't think otherwise and so there's no real debate on this point. dmb said previously: I think the hierarchy of levels already conveys the spectrum that Squonk seeks for the MOQ. Squonk said: This means: 'the relationship between Dq and sq is well stated in the moq by the hierarchy of levels'. ..You made the claim: 'I think when Pirsig says some static patterns are more dynamic than others he's referring to the basic idea behind the hierarchy of levels. You know, the four levels of static patterns and then the code of art on top of that, which more directly involves DQ.' dmb replies: Again, I'm only saying the four levels display a spectrum, not that increased dynamism exists "just between whole levels". The lines between the levels mark an evolutionary jump such that the new forms display a new purpose and direction so that it opposes the parent level in some ways. Again by analogy, I've said the building has four stories and you've taken this to be a denial that the fours floors have any walls or furniture, but it simply doesn't follow. dmb said previously: I would have objected saying something like, "Huh, how would that work"? Squonk replied to dmb: Lame. But then, considering the Wandering through the Mythos memory lapse, perhaps you are now telling the truth. dmb replies: Okay, now I see what the grudge is all about. Look, I'm sorry your Liverpool address didn't make it into the movie. But it wasn't my choice and in all fairness you can hardly blame Anthony for leaving it out. If memory serves, nobody understood it. You can try to trash me, the movie, the conference and Ant if that makes you feel better but maybe you should also think about why nobody understood what you were saying. And what would you do if it were your movie and had to decide whether or not to include such a speech? I don't blame you for being disappointed. Who wouldn't be? But its not an anti-Squonk conspiracy, just a reasonable choice for a movie about quality. Squonk said to dmb: ...You denied that some patterns are more dynamic than others within levels: '...but if I understand it the idea can be pretty well expressed by saying that the higher levels of static quality have structures that are more open to change, are more flexible and are better able to respond to DQ.' dmb replies: Thanks for including the quote from which you derived my denial. But again, this denial simply doesn't follow from saying that these structures are increasingly open. I'm just saying the the overall structure of the MOQ displays a spectrum. By way of a third analogy, a denial of fresh water or the seas does not follow from naming the oceans. Squonk said to dmb: The game isn't over; the game is original thought; seeing things that may have gone unnoticed, daring to be made a fool of, asking daft questions. dmb replies: Courage and original thought are good things, but my complaints are about clumsiness and inherently contradictory phrasing. Like a lot of people around here, I think philosophy is a creative art form and if you can do it, more power to you. But there is such a thing as a bad art work. You're free to continue, of course, but as I've already explained, I think this particular experiment is poorly designed and morally objectionable. Can't promise to join you on this one any further. Sorry, but I keep getting this bad feeling like I've wasted my time and I gotta go with that feeling. _________________________________________________________________ It’s a talkathon – but it’s not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk 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/
