Hi Marco:
I'm delighted that you have invited me to comment on your idea
that art could be an extension of intellect
For me, the expansion of the outer edges of intellect or the
possibility of establishing a higher, esthetic level is where the
MOQ promises to exert the greatest influence on modern thought.
If we accept that DQ is the evolutionary force leading to higher
levels of Quality, and if we agree that art reflects man's attempt to
recognize, sustain and nourish DQ, then any disagreement we
might have about where art best 'fits' into the MOQ structure
becomes less important. I agree with mathematician Jacob
Bronowski who said:
"Every thoughtful man who hopes for the creation of a
contemporary culture knows that this hinges on one central
problem: to find a coherent relationship between science and the
humanities."
To this central problem the MOQ offers a brilliant solution I'm sure you'll agree.
What follows are a few remarks in response to your thoughts.
> 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.
Yes, part of the artist's skill is creating static quality from the inspiration of DQ.
I would only add that the sq thus created when experienced by
others can produce a sense of DQ. (Recall Pirsig's description in
'Lila' of hearing a song for the first time that 'stops you in your
tracks.') In fact, IMO the purpose of art is to create that sense of
DQ, to engender a feeling of awe for the sheer beauty of being
alive.
> 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.
Yes, art has been used by leaders for millennia as a means to
gain and secure social power. Art's power as propaganda cannot
be denied, nor can the social-cementing effect of celebrity deriving
from the arts be downplayed, as Pirsig reminds us in 'Lila.'
> 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.
Yes, we're in basic agreement.
"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.
You make a persuasive case. But what concerns me is that
the aesthetic encounter is NOT remotely intellectual in any way,
shape or form, except as an afterthought. One can't intellectually
account for the feeling one gets from exposure to great art. About
all you can say is, 'Ah' or 'Wow' as it smacks you in the face with
pure, direct, unfiltered experience, similar to a physical blow. By
contrast, intellect is mostly about using words and symbols to
create maps about experience, as many on this site have pointed
out.
> 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.
Yes, that's what I'm driving at in suggesting an aesthetic fifth level, to establish
once and for all art as the leading edge of intellectual experience.
Just as intellect arose to serve the interests of society, now let an
aesthetic level arise to serve the interests of intellect by giving it
something better to aspire to than mere map making. Maybe
Satchmo Armstrong said it best, 'If it ain't got that swing, it don't
mean a thing.' Or as guitarist Eddi Condon said about listening to
jazz, 'Does it come in like broken glass or does it come in like
honey.' Both these artists would have no problem understanding
Pirsig's words in his letter to Bodvar in answering the question
about how to justify the claim that Quality equals reality--'by the
harmony it produces.' With establishment of an aesthetic level,
harmony would become a more potent aspiration for intellect (and
by osmosis, society) than we see today. Wouldn't that be better?
> 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.
Yes, beauty is a good candidate. Much is beyond our current
understanding which, as Chris Lofting has so patiently pointed
out, is almost solely based on splitting experience into parts and
pieces and, like humpty dumpty, putting them back together again.
But beauty unifies and harmonizes all at once without prior
disintegration, and gives us a broader understanding of reality
than intellect, with all its power, can provide. So I think the
aesthetic level is already here. It's just a question of recognizing it
and making central to our lives, not treating it as a disposable frill.
Looking forward to your comments, Marco.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST