Ian, Mark, et al. dynamic or Dynamic Quality?
What's the difference? Are they the same thing? If they are, then aren't we all defining the undefinable when we say something, such as Ian does with music below, is dynamic? If the MOQ really is a way to live ones life. Shouldn't we be able to say then, what is and is not Dynamic Quality? If the MOQ really is good then shouldn't we be able to categorise something in either of the two boxes of the first division of the MOQ? I'm seeing a lot of people getting stuck on this point and I think the blame can be laid on the use of this term 'dynamic' which avoids the issue entirely. 'dynamic' muddies things where the first division of the MOQ brings clarity. So that said. Ian, is art Dynamic Quality or static quality? On 31/03/2011, at 10:32 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Ha, David, > > Attending (participating in) a musical event does not require any > lingusitic or intellectual conceptualization of the experience - so > you get a good dose of the dynamic. (Of course there are plenty of > patterns involved in the music and the concert ritual itself, but only > if you analyse them - you can feel the quality without doing that.) > > The source of many previous discussions on MD. You used the extreme > sports "buzz" example and others as things beyond our discourse - I > was just reinforcing your point. > > (The only reason I picked on Hawkwind and VdGG with a ;-) was knowing > Horse is a fan and had experienced the latter only the day before - > but you could substitute whatever artistic / cultural participation > event that turns you on.) > > Ian > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> I'll bite. What does this have to do with the first division of the MOQ? Is >> a Hawkwind or Van derGraaf Generator gig static quality or Dynamic Quality? >> >> >> On 30/03/2011, at 6:48 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >>> Hi David (H) >>> >>> You summarised your impression of Mark's take thus: >>> >>> "If everything is static quality", you seem to say.. "then that >>> appears to be a very sad existence indeed." >>> >>> (You go on to point out lots of non-static things in real life ...) >>> >>> Mark's take hinges on the "everything" in the first clause being - >>> "everything that we can objectivise and discuss in language in a >>> metaphysics discussion forum (or anywhere else)". That would indeed be >>> a very sad existence, but of course life, the universe and everything >>> is a lot more than that, as you point out. >>> >>> As you perceive it's a source of frustration or sometimes confusion >>> for many on MD .... that we can only ever skirt around reality ... but >>> that is the reality of any discourse .... a reason why we need to meet >>> in the flesh at Hawkwind or Van derGraaf Generator gigs ;-) >>> >>> Metaphysics discusses meta-life and meta-reality, it's not real-life itself. >>> >>> Ian >>> 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/md/archives.html >> >> 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/md/archives.html >> > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
