"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
> Date sent: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:57:01 EDT
> Subject: Re: Non-sense! (was) TO: Joe Dees - Mu-shin
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
> > In a message dated 9/26/1999 2:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
> >
> > << I have yet to see a waltz without a waltzer. >>
> >
> >
> > There exists a form of dance, the instruction for the dance, the seed of
> > information that is called "waltz". The pattern. If the dance is done no
> > more, the structure can remain. Like 12 bar blues, which exists, even if we
> > don't play it ot listen to today.
> >
>
> There is no performance without a waltz, a waltzer and waltzing,
> three distinguishable but insparable elements. People aren't
> notations upon a page; they're interacting with each other in a
> commom world. As such, your example doesn't apply, since it is
> based upon a flawed metaphor which fails to truly map the territory.
> >
it is not flawed, but it is merely in a different state. A waltz, as sheet music and recorded dance steps, is, by definition, a waltz, but it is in a potential or static state, while the performed waltz is also a waltz, but in a kinetic state. Saying that one or the other is not a waltz is like saying that a mere seed or sprout is not an oak tree, merely because it is not 20 meters tall.
Mike Lorrey