From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Sep 26 1999 - 19:07:22 MDT
Date sent: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:10:23 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
Organization: http://www.lorrey.com http://www.artlocate.com
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Non-sense! (was) TO: Joe Dees - Mu-shin
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "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.
>
We're not talking frozen zygotes here, but interacting human
beings (such as those who participate on this list).
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:17 MST