Hello everyone On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:13 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And some of our posters hold some very rigid conceptions about "conventional" > terms. They > reject those terms on purely metaphysical reasons not Pragmatic ones. > > It's the attitude that must be rejected freinds .. the dynamism lies in > looking at each static > composite with fresh eyes, to see the new in the old, to expand understanding. > > And on this note, to Dan, perhaps the rejection of social quality and the > measuring of your > writing agaist the satisfaction it delivers to you has become a rigid static > pattern of "good" > for you and perhaps breaking those static patterns would be a real boon to > your writing. > Just a suggestion.
Hi Ron I'm not sure what you mean... are you suggesting writing gives me some sort of satisfaction? I thought I made it clear that it doesn't. I don't "want" to write so much as I am compelled to write. Are you suggesting I should pander to others and thereby measure my writing by the social value it holds? I don't believe that's art. Art goes beyond social and intellectual quality. Art cannot be measured so I don't "measure" my writing at all. I just write. If it is good, fine. If it is not, then it is not. And I do know the difference... it isn't the measure of my writing that makes it good or not... it is the writing itself... the art of writing shouldn't rely on whether or not I think others will like it. If it is good, they'll know it. I'm not rejecting social quality. I envy those who find value in social quality. But to me, it rings false. There are times when I wish it didn't. > > peace and to you, Dan 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
