Hi Arlo. I find your presentation of the A/D mixing interesting and full of possibilities in terms of presenting MoQ. The roots of "creativity" could well be a discussion which leads to a better understanding of the DQ and sq as presented in MoQ. I often ask my self where my ideas come from. Trying to determine that in an sq setting is as weird as trying to find the "Self" within a logical construct. The painting cannot turn around and describe the painter. In a way, you are describing Quality bursting into the world of DQ and sq, in my interpretation of what you present below.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > One of my interests is drawing in the masses, as I try to do in > conversations outside of this forum. > > [Arlo] > What I like about Nietzsche (among other things) is that he not only breaks > from the tradition of defining 'art' as 'that painting on the wall over > there', but suggests the undefined, pre-intellectual, immediate aesthetic is > the point where 'creativity' bursts into the world of form. In many ways, > his contact between Apollonian and Dionysian parallels Poincare's (and > Einsteins, and Pirsig's, and Peirce's) inquiry into the source of > hypotheses. > > [Mark] > As I see it in my simple way, A/D is said by Nietzsche, as an expression of > "energy" as described by the analogy of world view. What does N say about > their interconversion? DQ and sq are often depicted as distinct concepts > with DQ promoting sq. > > [Arlo] > I am hesitant to use 'distinct' in many of its conventional understandings. > While we can think and talk about 'Apollonian' and 'Dionysian', I think its > clear in Nietzsche that he's talking about a very dialectical relationship, > a Yin-Yang, where the two are inextricably interactive or inter-dependent. > Someone said to me once its like watching a tennis match but keeping your > eye on the ball, yes, there are opposing players, but the game's progression > is revealed as the ball moves between them. Its a two-dimensional analogy, > to be sure, but it works on a simple level. [Mark] Agreed, and the Western need for two things is what we have to go on here. Typically, when I state "distinct", I am applying a Yin-Yang approach for purposes of rhetoric and discussion. Yes, as presented, sq is a dead thing, and DQ is a life force. In the Yin-Yang model, each Yin is made up of Yin and Yang and (the reverse). Each subsection is in turn made up of smaller divisions, and ever increasing in fractal nature (I have seen some good renditions of this in the art world). The overall ascription of Yin (for example) to some object or phenomenon, is a statement of tendency, or "more" Yin than Yang. These dichotomies are of course for purposes of teaching and discussion. A consistent measure of such things are presented in terms of their usefulness to the human condition. The Yin-Yang is the basis for acupuncture, for example, and the 5,000 years (or more) of successful acupuncture, points towards its usefulness in healing affairs. Another example would be the I Ching. So perhaps it can be said that any creation as such can be evaluated on its usefulness. The same is true for scientific theory. Existence and usefulness are two different things. The A/D or the DQ/sq are no different and their usefulness is in providing meaning, and, in their daily usage. My usefulness of MoQ is beyond measure. > > One of the concerns I've had with Pirsig's MOQ has been the idea that DQ is > (analogous to) a 'force', but 'sq' is more like a 'dead thing' left in its > wake. In Nietzsche's formulation, both the Apollonian 'tendency towards > form' and the Dionysian 'tendency towards dissolution' are 'forces' (in the > analogous sense). It is a more direct Yin-Yang system, if you will, and I > think overall it works better than a force/dead-thing analogy. I'm going to > use the word 'value' slightly more constricted than Pirsig, but in many ways > Nietzsche maps Pirsig's MOQ by thinking of Apollonian as tendency towards > "value" (sq) and Dionysian as tendency towards "freedom" (DQ). > > In stating 'DQ promotes sq', I think what's missed is that 'sq re-paths DQ'. > What I mean is that sq isn't passively left behind, but these patterns of > value alter the course/direction of DQ by virtue of being agenic. So you > have this emergence of form that then alters the trajectory of what forms > appear in the future. In a long analogy, consider that the iPod (as it is) > is only possible subsequent to a species having an opposing thumb. Our > inventions, in other words, are shaped by our restrictions, and these > include the gamut of inorganic/biological/social and intellectual > composition. Yes, I would agree. A few weeks back I was discussing the way in which DQ and sq are symbiotic and cannot be separated. At that same time, I was perseverating on a description of how they interact (and I still am). Such description would be of use to Western logic (unless of course people mistake such analogy for Truth, which is the main stumbling block for any of these philosophies or religions, or even Science for that matter.) I like the word "tension" since it gives a feel for the DQ-sq (or Yin-Yang) interaction. This form of rhetoric is moving towards a description of the interaction. > > Simply, the arrow points both ways. And this is why there is a 'tension' > between the two, there is a 'pull' from each side, but within each side > there is also the ability to move towards the other. The unformed must not > only resist form, but it must include the ability to be formed; and the > formed must not only resist being dissolved, but it must include the ability > to allow itself to be dissolved. > > And, according to Nietzsche (and I think Pirsig), when these two > oppositional forces are in balance, is the point where 'art' as revealed > through human activity has its greatest emergence. The way I present DQ and sq is that there is a constant imbalance (which could be tension), which gives the appearance of movement, and direction. I have seen a description of reality given three parts, that is: the "soul", the "spirit", and "movement". This is an alchemical interpretation. But back to this interaction, we have the river, the banks, and their interaction. If DQ is the river, and sq the banks, then we have the river eroding the banks, and the banks guiding the river. DQ changes sq, and sq provides direction to DQ. > What I am currently seeking for purposes of promotional presentations of MoQ, are analogies which give meaning to the way in which DQ and sq "interact". Your discussion on Nietzsche is helping me out, so thanks for that. Cheers, Mark > > > 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
