ROG RESPONDS TO MARCO AND FINDS IN
THE END MUCHO AGREEMENT
To: Marco with likely relevance to Danilla and Platt and anyone else who is
interested in High Quality Endeavors (ART).
Re: Intellect and Art
Marco,
If you want to put certain types of art into the intellectual level, it seems
perfectly reasonable to me. I would certainly disagree if you felt all art
went in there, but you have written that you don't go this far. So, we in
the end we agree on much.
Some comments.....
MARCO:
My current thought about methodology is that it's an excellent technique of
refining
intellectual patterns. But it's a dangerous weapon: this obsession of science
for the
method is strictly related to the concept of truth and objectivity: the
methodic
experiment should prove the eventual truth of a theoretical premise,
objectively and
independently by any observer. This objective science well knows that
theories are
in some way aesthetic, but considers them of no value as long as the objective
unaesthetic method will not confirm them. IMO the MOQ shows that this
assumption is
merely an illusion: the method is aesthetic just like the theory. In the
passage
about. [snip]
By this point of view, it's easy to see the limit of the scientific objective
worldview: objectivity is an illusion, the method itself is artistic.
ROG:
I think you know I agree with the above.There are probably inherent
limitations in any artistic endeavor. Each methodology had its intentions
and effects, to use Danilla's terms, as well as its potentials and
limitations.
MARCO:
It's the "art
of the intellectual maintenance": an excellent aesthetic tool for
intellectual
patterns refining. IMO as the motorcycle maintenance does not create the
motorcycle, the method does not create the intellectual pattern.
ROG:
The methodology or technique is part of the creation or at least the
refinement process, but I think you go on to say the same thing somewhere
else....
MARCO:
I don't know if we agree here. However, more about method below. As you say,
the
point is not whether science is an art. It's whether Picasso is an
intellectual.
Let's go on.
ROG:
I concede! He is an intellectual. Seriously.
MARCO:
IMO RT is the process by which DQ becomes sq, at every level. RT is not merely
intellectual: we could say there's an intellectual rt, a social rt, a
biological rt
and even (maybe) an inorganic rt.
ROG:
I will stick with "High Quality Endeavor." I agree that HQE leads to
creative exploration of quality.
MARCO:
Bur ART is human. Its role can be social (the Colosseum). Can it be also
intellectual? It depends on what we call "intellect". The Aristotle's mistake
you
mention is, IMO, that he has subordinated Good within the scientific truth.
That is,
he considered the scientific truth as equivalent to the whole intellect. The
correction I
suggest, according to my comprehension of the MOQ, is to make it possible
for the
scientific method to grant equal dignity to art.
ROG:
???? Why do you want scientific methodology to "grant equal dignity to art?"
We already agreed it is artistic whether they grant it or not.
MARCO:
Given that he was an (excellent) painter, I'll try to explain again why I see
him as
intellectual. That is not that I see him as a scientist. I consider artists
being
(also, not merely!) intellectual as they share the same purpose of
scientists. This
purpose is to increase the knowledge of universe, to advance the horizon line
towards
the unknown. This "mission" was given originally by society to science, in
order to
increase the social power. Then science saw it was good, and transformed this
"mission" into a purpose of its own. Definitely this purpose is, as we well
know,
evolve towards excellence.
ROG:
Yuck. More anthropomorphizing! "One day,science woke up and got out of bed
and ate scrambled eggs and was jealous of art and"....... I know I sound like
a broken record, but I find this treating the levels as personified Greek
Gods is of little value and much misinterpretation (and yes, I know Pirsig
engaged in this rhetorical approach).
MARCO:
The mistake of western science has been to consider this "advancement towards
the
unknown" as something of finite. There have been times in which it seemed to
be
possible. So they have lost the "concept of the conceptually unknown". Pirsig
suggests a great correction for this mistake. Pirsig also suggests that
artists never
lose this concept.
And also Pirsig shows that science hardly admits that this universe it
studies is
not merely made of substance, particles, energy, proteins, cells, and so on...
Emotions, "giants", dreams, ideas, imagination, ghosts, states of mind...
are as
real as "matter". Even more real than matter, as they are made of higher
quality
patterns.
ROG:
Yes. I've already agreed to all this. I will, however suggest that matter
is made of the same patterns as the others. All are simplifications or
abstractions derived from the dynamic flow of experience.
MARCO:
IMO art demostrates a great capacity to investigate these aspects of reality.
Better
than any science, independently by the scientific method. And independently
by the
eventual concept of "The Conceptually Unknown" reintroduced into science (the
Pirsig's correction). My impression is that you have a sort of mystic vision
about
artists. You see them as pre-intellectual (or pre-static). You admit they can
grasp
DQ, but you seem to say that only if they are also scientists (like Einstein)
they
can transform their dynamic experience into intellectual patterns. IMO
Picasso was
not mystic. If he was mystic, he had not transformed his dynamic
inspirations into
pictures. By putting his visions of reality into a static picture (using a
method
known as painting, maybe not scientific, but however a method) he refuses to
be
merely mystic and tries put into a static form his interpretation of reality.
ROG:
Different technique or methodology. I concede! Picasso was an intellectual!
MARCO:
Dario Fo has been ostracized by the "social" media, like the TV, for his
ideas and
message. He is manifestly a Marxist. His art is both beautiful and
intellectual.
Surely he is not a scientist. So, I conclude, there's a way to be
intellectual even
without a scientific method.
ROG:
But I bet he is loved and adored by the 'liberal" SOCIAL set. Come to
America sometime. Here the media is liberal. (Note a basic disagreement with
JoVo's comment a while back that liberal =intellectual and social =
conservative. They are both social parties, though I may agree that liberals
tend to have more faith in intellectual ideas. Personally, I'm not sure if
this faith is very intellectual though. Seems we need more healthy
intellectual scepticism on many of these so-called intellectual solutions --
and critical scepticism IS IMO intellectual)
MARCO:
You ask me to differentiate intellectual patterns from social patterns. IMO
social
patterns have the original basic purpose to improve the possibilities of the
biological individuals; they are made of those emotions which make it
valuable the
social interaction among biological beings. Intellectual patterns have the
basic
purpose to increase the knowledge of universe; they are made of a socially
shareable
code and make it possible the communication of a description of reality.
ROG:
OK. Sounds like a good definition to me.
MARCO:
I take some of your examples:
A childish request for cookies is a "thing". It is social if it's merely a
request
for the mother's attention. It is biological if it's real hunger. It is
intellectual
if the kid is a genius and well knows how many calories has to eat everyday
in order
to survive.
ROG:
OK. I would sort it as:
The request for a cookie is social -- period.
Desire for a cookie is primarily biological.
Analysis of a cookie's chemical composition is intellectual.
The art of baking a cookie is artistic (though not very intellectual)
The art of truly savoring a cookie could also be artistic.
Certainly we can sort differently, but my main question is with your
definition of the intellectual level and how it pertains to these examples.
Is requesting a cookie an example of "take a small piece of DQ and put it
into a coded and socially shareable form?" If not, why? If so, why the
caveats that some requests are intellectual and others aren't. I need
clarification here. [ Sorry, I see below that you do clarify this, but I left
it here so you can see how my response progresses]
MARCO:
Laws are "things". They are social if they have been created to solve social
problems, in order to prevent a social discontent, or merely increase the
government
popularity. They are intellectual if they have been created in order to
assure the
application of human rights as necessary basis for intellectual development,
despite
of the social emotions measured by polls.
ROG:
You really do seem to focus on intent. But OK. I would sort it as:
Laws are social codes.
They of course can be influenced by intellectual theories, or they can be
"refined" by an intellectual/artistic methodology of creation, trial and
error.
I don't disagree any more with your analysis of Swan Lake. I still wonder
though how "the cries of beasts" is sorted in your intellectual definition of
"take a small piece of DQ and put it into a coded and socially shareable
form." Your above examples seem to show that you yourself sub-sort different
examples meeting the supposed intellectual definition into various levels.
Perhaps I just misunderstand though. And as a reminder, I agree that
intellectual patterns must shareable, I just find this condition to be
insufficient. This is part of the methodology. [Again, I see you DO answer
this objection below]
MARCO:
It [Motorcycle Maintenance] CAN (not MUST) be social and shared. To be
"Social and Shared" is not to be
"Socially shareable"! However, Motorcycle Maintenance is a "thing". It is
social if I
use to drive my motorcycle in order to improve my biologic possibility of
movement,
and if simply "I like to drive it" with my fellows bikers. It is intellectual
when I
use it as a metaphor or example of RiTual, in order to explain how universe
works.
Pirsig did it, and shared socially his insights by means of a book. A novel.
Artistic, I guess. I think you have listened about it... :-)
ROG:
Actually I was referencing the metaphor for life. The cycle is the self and
all..... my point is that High Quality Endeavor, ie Art does not have to be
social or shared. Intellectual Art does, but again this is not sufficient as
a definition here either. Are you sure you want to keep your definition of
intellect as broad as it appears to be at this time? [Ditto -- as below you
don't -- sorry]
MARCO:
Logic
(and science) is a good tool (not truth itself) for the investigation of some
aspects of reality: this has been the mistake of Aristotle. IMO the art of
painters
and dramatists can be a good tool for the investigation of other aspects of
reality.
IMO There's no hierarchy of science over art, or of art over science, within
the
intellectual level.
ROG:
Agreed. I am starting to think it makes more sense to view intellect as a
particular subset of Art defined by its methodology and purpose. I will go
along with you now that you can place intellectual methodologies that are
other-than-scientific too. Composition, rhetoric, opera, and so on. I may
not have come to this conclusion without this discussion though, so I thank
you very much. I add that my acceptance is tentative. Consider it a trial
theory. As I think you will notice, I try to explore new views. Adopt
theories and see if they make sense and hold them up to logical and other
aesthetic requirements. (Sometimes they do, often they don't)
MARCO responding to my point:
>Intellectual patterns are of necessity socially shareable, but this is not
>their defining characteristic.
Agree. It's a necessary but insufficient condition. The defining
characteristic is in
their purpose: they must be created/used in order to investigate reality.
ROG:
Oops! I see now that you have refined your view too! Sorry. I now accept
your definition as fully reasonable. Please disregard some of my earlier
criticisms.
I tentatively agree with the definition of intellectual patterns as "High
Quality socially-shareable endeavors to investigate reality." Do you accept
this too? Science and math and logic and opera and rhetoric are all
therefore different techniques or methodologies of exploration and sharing. I
will accept your division based on intent with the additional clarification
that there are different methodologies or techniques to achieve or pursue
this goal.
MARCO again to my point:
>Intellectual patterns are differentiated by their methodology.
I substitute method with technique (IMO method is a technique). Technique is
a tool
to refine patterns. It can distinguish good patterns from bad patterns.
Method does
not create patterns.
ROG:
Agree strongly. Certain lower quality patterns are identified, 'refined'
and/or eliminated according to the methodology/technique. I like this
concept. Seems very high quality.
Are we ready to wrap up our discussion? Thanks again, this one has been
first class!
Rog
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