To PLATT and BO,
========
Platt:
> I'm delighted that you have invited me to comment on your idea
> that art could be an extension of intellect
It's me who is flattered for your comments....
MARCO:
> > 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.
>
PLATT:
> 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.
YES! The sQ created, is a "container" of the DQ perceived in the Q-event. So
that it can be shared with the other "components" of the system (static
level). When we perceive DQ, we take it from the "things" we perceive,
discarding, as possible, the sQ.
[...]
PLATT:
> 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 agree. The aesthetic encounter (Q-event) is not static. IMO art is the
following step. My WOW! can be for a masterpiece, a monument , a beautiful
woman, a beautiful man, a movie, the Niagara falls, a kid saying "mum" for
the first time, the Earth seen from the space, an appetizing dish.... In
all these cases I perceive DQ from things. Then comes intellect. But, if I'm
an artist I use words and symbols in order to communicate my perception of
DQ in a static form. That's why I guess art as intellectual. The process is
similar to the one by which a scientist communicates his/her theories.
PLATT:
> 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?
>
IMO the aesthetic level you suggest can contain both art and science.
Reducing intellect only to science is a mistake. Science has been lately the
main application of intellect, but it's far from being the only one.
PLATT:
> 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.
Yes. The aesthetic level is already here. Pirsig SODAV paper is about it
(confront my recent post in answer to Roger). I think that the fourth
"intellectual" level is also "aesthetic". It's just question of recognizing
it. I agree. IMO the only problem of science (especially bad science) is
that often does not recognize it. But a good science can, without for that
renouncing to its rational methodological nature; and without considering
itself as "slave" of beauty. Just considering itself beautiful.
Thanks for your comments.
====
Bo:
I've read many times your message. Again, we are so close that we can touch
each other. Thanks, really thanks for your words. No need to comment on our
"struggle". Just I try to give an answer to your point:
> I think the term falls in with the many that have been forwarded
> ("Meaning", "memes", "significance"...etc) as candidates for
> replacing Value. My standard reply is: "Fine, there's Dynamic
> Logic and various static logical-levels and you have a MOL. If you
> had said this before Pirsig you would have been the genius, but
> why re-invent the gunpowder. Quality (Good) is always the best."
>
> Is this acceptable?
Oh, but I did not want to replace "value" with significance. I was just
pointing to the intPoV, that is one possible form of value. If value is all
there is, every word I use is just to about value. Pirsig is the Genius, I'm
just studying....
Thanks again.
Marco.
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 - 16:00:54 BST