> On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, I'll give the issue some more attention then. > > About Plains Speech. It's direct and simple and easy to understand. Not > easy to understand in only problem space, or solution space, but easy to > understand for all.
Ron replies: That would blurr and or render the distinction between SOM and MOQ Which would only serve to confuse Things, or am I wrong about that. JC continues: > About art: Art is a very special kind of human endeavor. Artists don't > force art but art forces artists - that is, a certain patterning calls to > the artist. Something new, built out of the old. All great art is born of > conflict, some kind of conflict, between polar opposites that Have to be > blended but can't be blended in the current paradigm. Artfulness is > different that intellectuality but artfulness is necessary for > intellectuality. Mish-mashing both art and intellect into one "quality > endeavor" label is mis-naming because there are important distinctions in > experience. > Ron replies: I tend to disagree, simply because it runs contrary to the solution space, The solution that MOQ offers. JC: > If you want to mish-mash something together meaningfully, mish-mash > "problem space" and "solution space" into one general category called > "experience" and be done with it. Ron: Again it seems to only confuse the issue at hand. > > On May 15, 2014, at 1:43 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > JC: > I don't think "artist" is a very nice word. > It implies some special status that lets certain people be creative > while the rest of us muddle along. Ron: The impression you gave above seemed to assert that this is where your emphasis lies. But I agree. I think Arlo covered that sentiment best. > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 12:20 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, I'll give the issue some more attention then. >>> >>> About Plains Speech. It's direct and simple and easy to understand. Not >>> easy to understand in only problem space, or solution space, but easy to >>> understand for all. >> >>> >>> About art: Art is a very special kind of human endeavor. Artists don't >>> force art but art forces artists - that is, a certain patterning calls to >>> the artist. Something new, built out of the old. All great art is born >> of >>> conflict, some kind of conflict, between polar opposites that Have to be >>> blended but can't be blended in the current paradigm. Artfulness is >>> different that intellectuality but artfulness is necessary for >>> intellectuality. Mish-mashing both art and intellect into one "quality >>> endeavor" label is mis-naming because there are important distinctions in >>> experience. >>> >>> If you want to mish-mash something together meaningfully, mish-mash >>> "problem space" and "solution space" into one general category called >>> "experience" and be done with it. >> Ron: >> I see, an "artist" needs something like >> Intellect to rail against in order to produce anything culturally >> meaningful and you are saying that >> Solving that problem only de emphasizes the artists role as a culture >> bearer. It levels artists and intellectuals and you see that as counter >> productive. Artists can't rightly feel like they are some how >> Smarter or "beyond" intellectuals >> Anymore and that just ruins the whole >> "Artist lifestyle" preconception mAkes it less noble or something. >> I get it. >> I think people call that elitism, and yes seeing intellect as an artistic >> extension certainly does piss on that >> Point of view. It means letting go of that whole hippie self righteousness >> And accepting that there is something redeeming about the "man" and >> society, that squareness >> That's every bit as important as tree hugging and spinning to the dead. >> It's probably what really pisses off that blue collar plains spoken farmer >> About the dynamic artist is that some how they think they are above or >> beyond them. >> >>> dmb: >>> >>>> >>>> Seems that you're not really a MOQer so much as a mocker, which wouldn't >>>> be so bad if you could really see what you were mocking. >>> Believe me Dave, I see what I'm mocking. >>> >>> John >>> 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 > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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
