Marco:
Thank you for your detailed response. I think we differ on only a few points.
You think Art should be included in Intellect. I said that Art is
equivalent to Intellect (above the Social level) but should be considered
separately.
Comment:
Perhaps our difference is due to the fact that as a nonnative speaker of
English you did not see the same restrictiveness in the word "Intellect"
that I saw. (And I guess that all native speakers of English would have the
same perception as I did.) Pirsig chose the word "Intellect" for this
level--in my opinion a problematic choice. In my dictionary, "Intellect" is
defined to EXCLUDE Art: "1a. The power or faculty of knowing as
distinguished from the power to feel and to will. 1b. Aristotelianism:
passive reason, active reason; 1c. Scholasticism: the faculty of
penetrating appearances and getting at the substance through abstraction
from and elimination of the individual; 1d. Thomism: the receptive faculty
of cognition that makes apprehensible the phantasma or intelligible forms,
also the aspect of the soul that is immortal and constitutes the active
power of thought; 2a: a person given to reflective thought or reasoning, a
person of notable intellect" Etcetera. All the definitions are about
rationality. (Pirsig's choice of "Intellect" to describe this level perhaps
betrays his SOM origins. Someone should ask him if he intentionally
excluded Art.) I followed his definition and included in "Intellect" only
human investigations and creations that use rationality (either verbal or
mathematical). Thus, I defined Intellectual patterns as only those patterns
that claim to be made by the method of rationality. And therefore, Art,
which is created by a different method, could not be Intellectual.
I see your point, however, that functionally (both upward and downward) Art
and Intellect do the same thing. If Pirsig had used another name for this
level, like "Distinctively Human Mentalisms Focused on Society and DQ,"
both rationality and Art could be included without any questions or
misunderstandings.
Now the question is: Is it useful to separate rationality and Art, or to
treat them together in the MOQ? I think it is essential to point out, over
and over again, that rationality is a recent human creation and that we
must be very careful when we use the terms "reason" "rationality" etc.
because it is such a "loaded" term in philosophy. Reason is a technology,
and rationality is a potential (but by no means always actual) attribute of
human beings. This fact is critically important to the MOQ's fight for
legitimacy and clarity. As you say about Dario Fo, Art can affect a
person's rational ideas. But I think that for purposes of argument we
should always maintain some distinction between the method of Art and the
method of reason, especially given the misleading term "Intellectual level"
so that explanations and arguments do not get stuck on elementary issues.
I really don't care if Art is considered "part" of Intellect or not, but I
think that for philosophical discussions and for teaching MOQ the place of
rationality and its relationship to Art in MOQ should be easily
understandable. Putting both rationality and Art together inside
"Intellect" may not be the best practical decision.
Also, I don't want to say "Art is Intellectual," because the dictionary
definition of "intellect" excludes Art. I think you meant that "Art is on
the Intellectual level". The statement "Art is Intellectual" is too
confusing for general purposes. It is better to say always that "Art is on
the same level as rationality or Intellect."
I said that In the fine arts, the method and the effect are both by
definition "Art." In craft/skill, the method is not "Art" but the effect
can be "Art." Here I want to distinguish, for the sake of clarity, between
the fine arts which are a recent development, and the long history of craft
art which is always Social. The fine arts sometimes affect the intellect,
but craft art does not. This is a problem if we say that "Art is
Intellectual". Where was craft art before humans developed rationality? On
an "intellectual" level before Intellect, as defined in the dictionary, was
developed? Again, Pirsig's term "intellectual level" is the root of the
problem.
Sometimes you say that "Art is Intellectual" and then you also say "I've
never thought that art is merely intellectual." You mean, I think, that
"Art-making belongs on the Intellectual level" and "I've never thought that
Art had effects only on the Intellectual level." Well, I agree, but instead
of having to spend hours disentangling these issues in a narrative form for
every single person who has a question, a separation of Art and
Intellect-rationality on the same level would make the distinction clearer.
-----------
You wrote:
> Unsuccessful art is unsuccessful art. Just like unsuccessful science is
> unsuccessful science. There are example of unsuccessful science...
> theories denied by experiments. Is it science? ... yes as purpose, no as
> effect.
Comment:
Think of a four-part matrix: Fine Art vs. Craft/Successful vs. Unsuccessful.
The successful fine art (e.g., a painting) is Art.
The unsuccessful painting is Art.
The successful craft (e.g., a building) is Art because it has beauty/harmony
The unsuccessful (ugly) building is not Art.
Obviously there are two definitions of Art hiding here. One is by the
method, the other by the effect. OK?
If someone chooses to classify or discuss Art by the "method" they will cut
up reality differently than if they use "effect." For clarity, people must
be explicit about what they mean by "Art." That was my point. (Platt's
suggestion of a Beauty level appears to be a classification of Art entirely
by effect.)
--------
You wrote:
>To say that we can perceive beauty at any of the four levels is not
>correct. Of course, it depends on what we mean for "beauty". IMO, the
>production/perception of beauty does not deal so much with my
>biological/social selves. And maybe also with my intellectual self.
I don't understand what you mean here. I see beauty in a snowflake, in a
cat, in a sports team that plays together perfectly for a moment. Aren't
these Inorganic, Biological and Social patterns? I am perceiving
high-quality patterns.
You wrote:
>The utility you mentioned is the social good. If we force beauty as a four
>level good, you can define your "utility" as the social beauty. I do
>prefer to say that it's simply social good.
I said that the fine arts have the goal of making beauty without utility. I
was trying to separate them from craft, which has a social function. The
fine artist of course wants to sell his or her work, but the work itself
doesn't have any social utility (unless you burn the painting for warmth).
Again, the point is to be clear about the difference between the fine arts
and craft, with the goal of pointing out that RT in craft existed long
before intellect came into existence.
----------
You wrote:
>"What we commonly call "art" (painting, theatre, poetry... ) are part of
>the widest family of "rt", which includes every
>activity dedicated to search for excellence. By means of RiTual and
>cReaTivity (method and intuition)".
And you say that RT occurs on all the levels, spontaneously. Where is there
RiTual and cReaTivity in a plant's adaptation to a new environment? Ritual
and intuition are specifically human. And IMO ritual is not the method of
RT-making or RT-seeking for most human activities. If I seek RT for myself
by participating in the MOQ-discuss list :), where is the RiTual? And why
does the method of RT-seeking have to be only "intuition"? So that you can
exclude science? I really think that REQUIRING "RiTual and cReaTivity" for
RT ruins your otherwise good point. Please explain your RT ideas at greater
length.
---------
You wrote:
>Then you go on exposing this theory of art and intellect as twin
>developments from the social level. It does not convince me.
For the historical background (and an opinion on the cave paintings), you
must read Julian Jaynes. I guarantee it is worth the trouble. It is a truly
revolutionary book.
--------
> > But first, where to fit the other definitions of art: the fine
> > arts and art=craft/skill? The fine arts are a topic or field that
> > includes all the > attempts by artists; "the fine arts" are an
> artifact of language
> > that isn't > important to this discussion.
>
>UH? This is a discussion about intellect. Isn't language important to
>intellect? Many here suggested language as the DNA of intellect.... By
>saying that art is an artifact of language you are maybe stating the
>equivalence of art and intellect!!! (or, at least, that art is
>intellectual)...
I meant that for my discussion the collective noun "the fine arts" was a
useless distraction; I was not talking about the collective noun but about
Art as it is experienced and valued within MOQ.
---------------
You wrote:
> Pirsig's point of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg being artists is not merely
about their skill of good and rigorous scientists. It is about their
capacity to follow the artistic sense of harmony in the attempt to explain
scientifically how universe works.
I think rationality has stolen quite enough from Art already, and to call
scientists "artists" is too generous! It would be better to say that they
sought (and found) RT, and that an observer perceives beauty in their work,
so they are "artistic" in the sense that good craft work is artistic.
-----------
You wrote:
>I used the concept of "environment" (the arena for pattern interaction)
>to explain the relationship between a tree and the ecosystem. I offered
>Space/Time as the inorganic environment, Biosphere (or ecosystem) as the
>biological environment; Economy as the social environment; Public
>opinion as the intellectual environment. But this is another story....
"Environment" seems like a good metaphor. Does it permit you to elaborate
the moral relationships of the patterns at the same social level and do you
thus get any prescription?
------------
You wrote:
>Science tries to surpass emotions. While fine arts try to dominate them.
>Both are in opposition to emotions (IMO emotions are the social basic
>value) but with different methods.
I agree, science tries to surpass (and suppress) emotions. But I would say
"the fine arts try to create and focus emotions" not "dominate" them. I
don't understand what you mean by "emotions are the social basic value." Do
you mean "emotions regulate social behavior?" (and instincts regulate
biological behavior)
---------
You wrote:
> As said to Platt in a recent post, during the social age art had a great
>importance. Just like philosophy and science. They all have been used to
>demonstrate the power of the society. To this social purpose, science
>has been more effective (it produces A-bombs!), so science had the
>prevalence over art. So that when science took the control of the
>evolution (that is, at the beginning of the intellectual era) science
>ostracized art. The lack of beauty is very recent effect of it. During
>the social age it seems to me that beauty was more protected than now.
>That's one of the reasons for we need to correct science.
I wasn't on the list when you wrote that post. Can you send it to me?
----------
>Yes, the giant of intellect. As long as there are different positions,
>and competitive ideologies, there's no risk. The only possibility for
>the unique intellectual giant will be when eventually a developed fifth
>level will find the ultimate solution for intellect. Just like what's
>happening for society: the unique giant is possible now that one model
>is going to be the winner, thanks to the simple fact that it has
>accepted the rule of intellect. IMO it's soon, as intellect is not
>completely free from society. But this going to be is an SF novel ....
Unfortunately it's not SF.
Happy Festival of Lights Season to all
Danila
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 - 16:00:55 BST