John, On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > >> >> > Let me put it a slightly different way, Dan. remember when the art >> > teacher was so impressed by Phaedrus's "sculpture"? And yet Phdrs >> > didn't see why? >> >> Dan: >> Absolutely. Phaedrus didn't understand DeWeese. They were on different >> wave lengths. One was a rationalist and the other an artist. >> >> > Jc: And yet they were friends. That is, there wasn't any antipathy or > competition driving their relationship, but an interest in each other's > different way of thinking. I find it telling that the artist seemed to > "get" the intellectual more than the intellectual got the artist. At least > in this story.
Dan: Sure they were friends. The Sutherlands were friends too. > > >> John: >> > The classic seems dynamic to the romantic, and vice >> > versa. But ultimately, the "realest" thing we can be sure of, is an >> > aesthetic good - something that "feels" right. It has to be logical, >> > of course. Anything illogical is bad thinking, but logic is like the >> > law - a schoolmaster, and does not itself own the goal of it's own >> > technique. >> >> Dan: >> Well, in that same section of ZMM, DeWeese asks Phaedrus to look at a >> light switch in his studio that's not working. He says how DeWeese has >> the look of an art patron asking the artist a question about a >> painting he doesn't understand. >> >> > Jc: DeWeese didn't understand electricity but that wasn't the bone of > contention in this episode - it was whether or not intuition can guide one > in seeking solutions. Phaedrus intuitively knew that the problem was in > the switch because he had some technical information about the way > electricity works, that DeWeese did not. This was frustrating to an artist > who prides himself on listening to his intuition alone. Dan: Well, from what I gathered, DeWeese wasn't frustrated over not knowing it was the switch, he was frustrated over Phaedrus telling him it was obvious. How did he know it was the switch and not a loose wire? Now... what if Phaedrus had replaced the switch and the light still didn't work? > > >Dan: >> He contrasts DeWeese with the Sutherlands in that he is not >> anti-technology at all... he is simply so far removed from it he >> doesn't understand it. But he is always willing to learn more. DeWeese >> becomes frustrated when he doesn't understand how Phaedrus knew it was >> the switch, especially when told it was obvious. >> >> In that sense, DeWeese is neither a classic personality or a romantic. >> He is beyond that. He is an artist. >> >> > Jc: I agree, but I associate the romantic with art. Is that wrong? Dan: I think one of the lessons of ZMM is that anything can be seen as art... the title of the book is indicative of that. Most people don't think of grease monkeys as artists, but they can be. So no, it isn't wrong to associate the romantic with art but I would say it is short sighted. A classical personality like Phaedrus can also be an artist. > > > >> >John: >> > But art, somehow, does. >> > >> > All logic came from a society that was following quality - what is >> > good. Rhetoric is an art. Logic is a tool. >> >> Dan: >> Anything can be seen as art as long as it is well done. I think that's >> one of the lessons from ZMM... even a welder can be seen as an artist. >> >> > Jc: I've encountered this issue before - is craftsmanship the same as > artistry? Dan: Craftsmanship can be an artistic endeavor. > John: > Is following a blueprint the same as creating a blueprint? Dan: Both can be artistic endeavors. > John: > Is a > chinese craftsman copying the Mona Lisa, brush stroke for brush stroke, > himself as artistic as Leonardo DaVinci? I don't think so. Dan: If I copy Hemingway word for word, am I the artist that Hemingway was? Of course not. > John: > I think Art is > more tied to DQ and craftsmanship to SQ. Dan: I think anything done with great peace of mind and caring is artistry. > >> >> Jc: you can say just as much "molecules don't make people" but the >> truth is, they do. > > Dan: >> But that is not what the MOQ says... biological patterns make use of >> inorganic molecules in the same way that social patterns make use of >> biological patterns. Human beings are composed of all four value >> levels but that doesn't mean social patterns are made up of biological >> patterns any more than biological patterns are made up of molecules. >> Otherwise, we'd have talking rocks. >> >> > Jc: "make use of" is fine with me. As long as it's understood that, > without the lower level "to be made use of", the upper would not be. Dan: Sure, that goes without saying. > > > >> Jonh: >> > what is different from a mere assemblage of >> > molecules, and those comprising the patterns of life, is more than >> > molecules - it's certain patterns. But those patterns rely upon lower >> > patterns, for their expression and very being so to denigrate the >> > lower leves is as silly as a man denigrating his molecules. I know >> > there is quite a lot of Christian philosophy, which does exactly that >> > - hate the flesh. But I'd hope the Moq would be more enlightened. >> >> Dan: >> The MOQ does not hate the flesh, nor does it denigrate the 'lower' >> patterns, at least not to my knowledge. >> >> > > Jc: I can agree that the MoQ does not but the community of interpretation > based upon the MoQ, often does, imho. It is seen in derogating "merely > social" patterns. Dan: I guess that depends upon the context. > > > > >> >> John: >> > A bunch of biological beings do not alone >> > make a society. But you can't have a society without a collection of >> > biological beings. >> >> Dan: >> But you can have social patterns without a collection of biological beings. >> >> > Jc: No. You can't. There has never, ever been in experience, a society > without people. Dan: Here is the confusion. A society made up of people is not social patterns of value. Social patterns are non-physical. You cannot see them. You cannot put them under a microscope and examine them. As long as you see social patterns as a collection of people, there will be confusion. >John: > If you counter with such abstract social patterns as "laws", I have to say > that laws were created by people, for people. They don't create themselves! Dan: No one is arguing that. When you say 'law' what do you point to? Take the law of gravity, for example... does it exist physically? Can we see it? Can we put it under a microscope and examine it? > > > >> John: >> > The lower levels can't compete with the higher - >> > they comprise the higher, in a fashion of laddered nestings of >> > meaning. You can't have the upper rungs, without the lower. >> >> Dan: >> In the MOQ, the levels are often in opposition to one another. > > > > Jc: Well that's a shame because in real life, the levels support and > harmonize with one another. You can't have intellectual patterns, without > social language, for instance. And intellectual ideas are always > criticisms of old intellectual ideas. New social patterns are created out > of new ideas. You seem to be conflating the opposition the old has against > the new to inter-level conflict. That's more a DQ vs SQ thing rather than > a social vs intellect thing. Dan: I don't think I am conflating anything. It is the MOQ that states that the levels are often in opposition. I am pretty sure I already offered a quote to back up that assertion so I take it you believe it is the MOQ that conflates the old against the new. > > Dan: > > >> Social >> patterns seek to control biological patterns in the same way that >> biological patterns seek to control inorganic patterns. It isn't that >> they seek to destroy one another, however. >> >> > Jc: I agree. I don't see control as the same as competition. When my > kids were babies, I controlled what they ate and where they lived but there > was no competition involved. Dan: I think that is short sighted. Children need to be under control because they don't yet understand the dangers in the world. As parents, we compete with biological urges of our children that we know are not in their best interest. It happens all the time. > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jc: Yes. Society is set up for the biological good of the whole, >> > over the wrong-headed and self destructive tendencies of insane >> > individuals. And we're not very good at telling the degenerates from >> > the messiah's so we just lump them all in together. But this is not a >> > war against life itself, or the patterns that make up life. Life as a >> > whole, is improved, with the curbing of the violent. This is not any >> > sort of overthrowing of biology, it's guiding and informing - not >> > competing. >> >> Dan: >> To be in opposition to something does not imply war. Instead, look at >> the higher levels as seeking to free the lower ones. >> >> > Jc: I definitely see it as "freeing" but I can't see freeing as > opposition. Dan: We all have a comfort level where we tend to settle into. Unless something which opposes that comfort comes along and shakes us out of our complacency, we stagnate. > >>> Dan: >>> If someone or something was making use of you, controlling you, >>> dominating you, would you accept that? Or would you oppose it? >>> >> >> Jc: Well it all depends, I suppose. Were they doing a good job? > > Dan: >> According to who? You or them? >> >> John: >> > Am I happy? >> >> Dan: >> Are you? >> >> John: >> > Is life exactly what I want? >> >> Dan: >> No. Your life is exactly what your oppressors want. >> >> > Jc: I guess my particular point is that my life is as I want. If there is > some oppressor, making it so, who cares? If they or it are forcing me to > be content then pragmatically speaking, so what? As you said yourself, > the upper levels are freeing the lower. Freeing is not opposition and its > a good kind of control. Dan: We don't seek to gain freedom from something we like. We seek to gain freedom from suffering. Freedom is always in opposition to something holding us back, otherwise, there is no need to be free. > > > >> John: >> > Then I guess it wouldn't >> > bother me that I was being controlled. I understand the point that >> > nobody likes the feeling of knowingly being controlled, but that >> > "knowing" is by some other. That is, it's a social knowing and >> > metaphysics disposes of it handily if we need be. >> > >> > But your question begs too many different paths, like "opposition". >> >> Dan: >> Really. How about the kindly farmer who lovingly feeds the animals >> each day? Do they realize that they are being fattened up for a >> purpose? Or do they simply enjoy being taken care of? Oh look... here >> comes that stupid farmer again with our supper. Yum! >> >> > Jc: I admit there are bad forms of control. My point was that all control > is not bad. If the Farmer is of a kindly nature and treats his animals > well, it's probably a fair trade. All animals eventually die and becomes > food for other animals. This can be accepted gracefully and life can be > good. Dan: Sure. I can get up, go to work every day, come home, sit down in front of the television until I get sleepy, go to bed, and get up and do it all over again the next day until I am too old and worn out to go on, at which point the beneficent corporation I worked for puts me out to pasture and I spend my twilight years gumming my food and shuffling back and forth to the pharmacy. I can accept that gracefully. Lots of folk do. Or, I can say the hell with the corporation and spend my days and my nights creating something completely new and unlooked for. It certainly isn't as easy as working for the corporation where I know all my needs will be taken care of. I'll never get to retire because my art will only be complete the day I die. I'll spend my twilight years still hammering away at the keyboard. > > > >> John: >> > If my opposition made any difference, then could it be said I was in >> > fact, being controlled? >> >> Dan: >> So you just give up? >> >> > Jc: No, actually I don't think I'm being controlled by anybody. Except > maybe by my wife and that doesn't count :) Dan: :-) > >>> >>> Dan: >>> "They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. >>> Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an >>> extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level >>> can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating >>> it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes." [Lila] >> >> >> >> Jc: Sure. I realize I'm arguing with the author's words. But is >> that a valid effort? > > Dan: >> I think it is a valid effort if you are offering something better. >> >> > Jc: I definitely think it's better for intellect to struggle with > societies problems than to ignore it all as "beneath 4th level concerns" Dan: I tend to leave the problems of society to others to solve. I have enough work trying to fill the holes in the plots of my stories. >John: > Even the dictum to solve the problem in one's own mind and heart first, is > not a necessary limit but a necessary beginning. Let's take those > beginning steps, for sure. But don't stop there or the MoQ is doomed. > Staticity = death. Dan: Again, I am not arguing about that. If a person can offer something better, great. I am reminded of the author Dave Buchanan brought up a little while ago... Mr. Edwards was his non de plume, I believe... or maybe it was Hitchcock? I don't remember. I just remember he had something to do with Little House on the Prairie. Anyway, the book he offered was nonsensical. It was plain to see the guy had no understanding of what Robert Pirsig was saying. > > > John: >> > I think Pirsig experienced more social conflict >> > in his life than most people. His particular experience there isn't >> > the best guide to universal rules. >> >> Dan: >> Perhaps not, but he wrote the book. >> >> > > Jc: Amen. > > There seems to be an aspect of conflict, necessary to true art. The > conflict between the individual and his society. It can be so fruitful. > It can be so degenerate. I don't know of any easy formula that > distincitifies between. > > or, said in another way, metaphysics ain't for sissies. Dan: Art isn't for sissies. Art requires not only a thorough knowledge of the subject, but a sort of disengagement that allows for creativity to leak through. Sort of like the beer can shim in ZMM. A person can go to the shop, purchase some precisely engineered shim stock, artfully cut a section to fit inside the handlebar grips, or they can hack up a beer can and artfully make a shim out of it. > > John: >> > When you're talking about all of >> > reality, fitting into 4 discrete levels, you can't say they are >> > completely discrete, because everything is in intimate relation and >> > while there is conflict and problems and pain, in the world, there is >> > also support, and upholding, and caring and love. >> >> Dan: >> "Trying to explain social moral patterns in terms of inorganic >> chemistry patterns is like trying to explain the plot of a >> word-processor novel in terms of the computer's electronics. You can't >> do it. You can see how the circuits make the novel possible, but they >> do not provide a plot for the novel. > > > > Jc: There ya go. Plain as day. What would a novel be, without a plot? Dan: So you accept that the four levels are discrete? > > Dan quoting Lila: > > The novel is its own set of >> patterns. Similarly the biological patterns of life and the molecular >> patterns of organic chemistry have a "machine language" interface >> called DNA but that does not mean that the carbon or hydrogen or >> oxygen atoms possess or guide life. A primary occupation of every >> level of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower levels of >> evolution. But as the higher level gets more sophisticated it goes off >> on purposes of its own." [Lila] >> >> Dan comments: >> Like the plot of a novel, caring cannot be found in the physical >> universe. It resides in its own set of patterns. >> >> > Jc: Quality is indefinable, but everybody KNOWS what it is. That is, it > can be experienced in the patterns that make up the physical universe. Dan: Ah! And why can it be experienced? Isn't that the reason experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous in the MOQ? > > > > >> John: >> > It takes >> > intellectual love, to care about the intellectual paradigms of society >> > and when the conflict comes - it comes between different patterns on >> > the same level. >> >> Dan: >> Intellectual paradigms of society does not correspond to social patterns. >> >> > Jc: Then they should try harder. The goal of all intellectual analysis is > conformity with the object of its attention. Dan: That depends. If a person is starving to death, then the goal of intellectual analysis is to find something to eat, conformity be damned. > > > >> John: >> > We critique a society's metaphysics, intellectually. >> > We oppose it's social expansions, socially. >> >> Dan: >> Again, it gets confusing when you mix metaphors. > > > Jc: Heh. Metaphysics ain't for sissies. And neither is poeisis. But I'm > always willing to clarify and re-state. But what I was referring to, > above, that social patterns require other social patterns to oppose them. > You can't oppose a social pattern, solely by an idea that nobody grasps. Dan: Nobody grasped the theory of relativity for years after Einstein published his paper. Yet his ideas were clearly opposing the social patterns of the day. Einstein worked as a patent clerk for 15 years after publishing his first paper! So yes, you can oppose social patterns solely by an idea nobody grasps. > > Dan: > > >> Social patterns do >> not invent metaphysics. A metaphysics is a collection of intellectual >> patterns that seek to control social patterns. >> >> > > Jc: Social patterns do not invent metaphysics. Metaphysics invent social > patterns. Dan: I think a metaphysics is a collection of intellectual quality patterns. Social patterns arise out of biological patterns. > > >>> Dan: >>> Intellect is not the highest value in the MOQ. >> >> >> Jc: I realize that Dan, but how quickly it gets forgotten. The >> argument goes: since DQ is undefined, we can't really talk about it. > > Dan: >> Not at all. We talk about Dynamic Quality all the time. We define it >> all the time. Only once defined, it is no longer Dynamic Quality. >> >> > Jc: Right! so we only talk about SQ. And since that's all we talk about, > that's all we believe in. I'm aware of the argument. Dan: It is always good to see when someone's argument begins to break down. > > > >> Dan: >> > Everything we do is static and therefore we are confined to static >> > intellect, which is the 4th level - the highest. Intellect Uber >> > Alles, I see it. And no, you're not guilty of it. But I could name >> > half a dozen who are. >> >> Dan: >> The MOQ states that experience and Dynamic Quality are synonymous. >> > > > Jc: Then the MoQ is wrong. Experience is generated by Dynamic Quality, > but that doesn't make them synonomous. Any more than a father is > synonomous with his child or electricity with a dynamo. A certain > correlation exists, sure. But equality? No way. Dan: Static quality arises from experience. Remember, the MOQ begins with experience. To say experience is generated by something is to go against that, and we are no longer talking about the MOQ. I could offer myriad quotes to back this up, but I have a feeling it wouldn't do any good. Would it? > > > Dan: > > Since the MOQ starts with experience, that is the highest value. Look >> at it this way: experience is a river, deep and wild and dangerous. To >> jump into it is to put the self in danger. So, each of us have a >> bucket we fill from the river of experience and we call the water >> inside that bucket our life. We define everything in our bucket and >> call it static quality. But that defining is itself Dynamic Quality. >> We are always in touch with it even if we can never fully define the >> definition. >> >> > > Jc: No. Look at it this way. Existence is. Any river environment that > defines the boundaries of this existence, do not themselves make this > existence because existence is temporal, not spatial. Dan: But that is what we as human beings do... we define boundaries. The temporal nature of reality has nothing to do with that. > > > I have to stop now. Taking lu ouy for frozen yoghurt, soon as she finishes > mowing the lawn. :) Dan: I'd really love a hot fudge sundae, thank you! Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
