Dear Platt,
It's the first time, if I remember well, that we have the occasion to
exchange some messages... I'm glad for this. I've read a lot this famous
chapter 13, but also we all know very well what's written in chapter 12 of
Lila:
"In this plan of understanding static patterns of value are divided into
four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and
intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you
construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and
Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing", that is. Only Dynamic Quality,
which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent".
Of course this is about the current situation, so it is arguable that in
future a new level could pop up. I've read several your messages, in which
you strongly offer this vision of a possible fifth aesthetic level.
I must admit that I'm oscillating between the possibility of such a level or
its impossibility. I try to explain my current position; well knowing it's
far from being definitive....
I consider ART (or, better, RT) the activity that can be closer to DQ.
That's, in few words, ART is the skill of cRreaTing sq from DQ. But also,
it's the skill to perfect and preserve sq, by means of RiTual activities.
For millennia, art has been not only this "frill" you mention. The art of
the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, for example, and the art of Italian
Renaissance, has also gone with the leading edge of society. It was the time
in which art and technology were close (if not the same thing), and the most
famous masterpieces (Pyramids, Parthenon, Colosseum, Sistine Chapel and so
on) had the explicit purpose to demonstrate the power of the society: versus
other cultures, versus the biological forces, versus the Gods.
More recently, here in the west the intellectual level era has come to
light. I lately exposed my theory that western intellect has been selected
during millennia in order to solve social needs, so when it has been able to
stand up and walk alone, it was just able to bring to the extremes this job.
The first thing to eliminate as frill was art. This young intellect had no
need to demonstrate any social power. The main purpose was to demonstrate
the power of science, rationality and logic. So technology divorced from
arts and pursued the main purpose to solve social needs.
The artists, left without a specific purpose, begun a new (intellectual?)
path: the expression of their state of mind, their personal perspective on
this mad world we are attending to.
Today the situation is that while technology and science seem to be able to
solve social and biological needs, it's obvious that we are far from the
solution of individual needs. Happiness, beauty, quality of life can't be
provided by materialism (be it communist or libertarian). The best option
seems to give to the aesthetics the high consideration it is worth of.
Up to now, I think we are probably onto similar positions. What do I mean by
"One possibility is the fifth level, but I'm very negative about it. We
don't need it"?
You see, I consider the division in four levels as an intellectual
assumption made by Pirsig, not a Truth. It's a good intellectual trick
(using Denis' words) that is able to give a very simple, rational and
harmonic description of universe. However, if we accept this division and
the MOQ evolutionary view, it's clear that the intellectual era has just
moved its first steps. And probably it will last centuries or millennia. So
if we take our need of happiness, beauty and quality of life and put it on a
new level, do we get a better description of universe?
IMO no. For the following reasons:
Firstly, by this, we abandon intellect to its current anti aesthetic role.
It's like to say there's nothing to do with it. Not only, we condemn also
universe to an eternal struggle Intellect Vs Aesthetics, in which if ever
aesthetics will win, it will happen probably. in 5000 A.D.
Secondly, one point of the MOQ is that the new level arises after a long
process in which the below level creates and breeds a new kind of patterns.
So even if it will happen that a new fifth aesthetic level will be
established, it will be possible only if some "aesthetic pattern" will
become part of the current fourth level. It's not by denigrating intellect
that we make it possible its evolution. It's by enriching it with all what's
there of good in this world.
That's why we "don't need" the fifth level. It is probably better to embark
aesthetics and quality into the same boat with science and rationality.
I strongly agree with your words:
> . it's not surprising that art is thought to be a frill by intellect
(except by
> the most creative intellectuals).
Yes, it possible to be intellectual and creative, and consider art not as a
frill, rather the leading edge of intellectual experience. Just like it was
possible during the renaissance to be very social and creative, and consider
art as the leading edge of the social experience.
So, what about the fifth level? Maybe it will rise one day, but it's very
hard to imagine what can it be. Beauty is a good candidate, but I'd like to
imagine that, whatever it will be, art would be its leading edge. For ever
and ever.
tks for reading
hope to read your comments
Marco.
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
A: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Data invio: mercoledì 29 novembre 2000 18.22
Oggetto: Re: MD Intellect
> Hi Marco:
>
> You wrote:
>
> One possibility is the fifth level, but I'm very negative about it. We
> don't need it. IMO the best view is to consider Art and Science
> being two wonderful intellectual possibilities. If only we could
> enlarge this poor vision of intellect . . .
>
> As you know, Pirsig opened the possibility for a fifth level of Art with
> this statement in Lila, Chap. 13:
>
> "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
> biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral
> codes that established the supremacy of the social order over
> biological life-conventional morals -proscriptions against
> drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral
> codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order
> over the social order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech,
> freedom of the press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality
> which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or
> something like that, but art is usually thought of as such a frill that
> that title undercuts its importance. The morality of the brujo in
> Zuni-that was Dynamic morality."
>
> No doubt for many centuries the social level considered the higher
> codes of intellect to be a "frill." (Universal education in the West
> has only been around for 200 years or so.) Even today there are
> some groups who denigrate the higher intellectual order. So it's
> not surprising that art is thought to be a frill by intellect (except by
> the most creative intellectuals). To hold its own, a level must fight
> not only what's below, but also what's above.
>
> The brujo had little claim to fame except as a singer and poet. Yet
> this "artist" saved his society from destruction. Which brings to
> mind the prize winning playwright Vaclav Havel who, like the brujo,
> was ostracized from his society (Communist Czechoslovakia) but
> led the opposition to eventually become his society's leader.
> Another "artist" to the rescue.
>
> So maybe we need an "art level" after all-one which doesn't treat
> the pursuit of happiness through the pursuit of beauty as a
> vocation for useless dilettantes (as many intellectuals view it) but
> a level for people imbued with an almost manic quest for Dynamic
> Quality.
>
> What do you think of that possibility?
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST