Marco to Danila
thank for your comments and questions, I'll try to give my opinions and
clarifications....
>
> 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.
>
Good point! I've not here an Italian dictionary, but I bet that we have
the same definitions for "Intelletto". After all, it's a Latin term, and
its meaning developed mainly within philosophical environments, so that
even the Italian definition surely matches yours. But I've to say two
things:
#1- The etymology for this term (as for Intelligence) is from Latin
INTELLIGERE (To understand), and it's composed by IN+LEGERE, that is
IN+READ. So that the original meaning of intelligence is "The ability
to read into", and Intellect is the output of this ability. It does not
seem far from my "investigation of reality".
#2- As said, the evolution of the term happened mainly within
philosophical environments. As you point out, Aristotelianism,
Scholasticism and Thomism had to say a lot about Intellect. So that the
original meaning has been a little distorted considering only the
rational investigation, despite of the artistic one. As Pirsig is a sort
of living Sophist, he is immune from the "modern" usage of the term
intellect, so that maybe he uses this term according to its original
significance.
However, IMO "intellectual level" works. But if we all agree that we
have a problem....
> 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 suggest intellectual/artistic level. I'll return on this in my
next post to Roger.
> 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?
>
OK. A great methodic application :-)
> 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.
>
Well, my MOQ interpretation tends to AVOID such equivalences:
matter=inorganic level
life=biologic level
human associations=social level
thought=intellectual/artistic level
This beautiful snowflake is not inorganic.
IMO, the snowflake is inorganic if freezes my skin, is biological if I
drink it, is social if it's part of a ski track during the ski world
championships, is intellectual if I investigate its molecular
composition... or its beauty. Contemplation of beauty can't be
inorganic.
Things pertain to levels depending on their possible interactions with
universe. The snowflake (object) is derived by the quality event in
which it is in interaction with a subject.
--------------------
> 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).
I'd call this a biological utility (it saves my life), while a social
utility could be the fame the artist gains thanks to the work (Pirsig
indicates celebrity as a social value).
> 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.
Roger accuses me of anthropomorphism.... but isn't life replication a
biological RiTual"? And isn't mutation (and eventually adaptation) a
biological cReaTivity? One of Pirsig's point is that he found a common
mechanism to explain evolution. RiTual and cReaTivity, order and
freedom, at different levels.
> 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?
Well, you write in English, you use to start your posts with the name(s)
of your interlocutors, and close every post with your name; and the
charter and rules of the list are our shared rituals.
> 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.
"only" intuition? IMO science is highly intuitive. I'd add curiosity. If
a scientist is not curious and intuitive, what can discover?
> Please explain your RT ideas at greater
> length.
Hope I did. Let me know what's wrong.
> ---------
> 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.
OK, however I think that the trouble is the term, as you suggested. I
accept twin developments, if we consider those twins at the same level
(they share the same purpose). I thought you were going to the
conclusion of twin separate levels, that is, IMO, to state the
impossibility of a dialogue between art and rationality.
> --------
>
> > > 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.
OK, sorry
> ---------------
> 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.
IMO they also used to perceive beauty in their works. Pirsig's points
about the scientist's curiosity and the beauty of the mathematical
solutions demonstrate that rationality and science can't be
non-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?
Not exactly. But it allows to design a border for the intra-level
relationships. I tend to evaluate intra-level morality by the
"diversity" allowed to the below level (for example a society is more
moral also if it's able to preserve a greater bio-diversity), and by the
degree of freedom granted to the development of the above level (a
society is more moral if it's able to support the intellectual
development among the citizens).
But I'm far from definitive results on this.
> ------------
> 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.
As science uses to investigate inorganic and biologic reality in order
to dominate them (by means of technology, for example), IMO art is a
tool to investigate emotions in order also to dominate them. Sometimes
to express anguish is a good way to tame it.
> 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 will find some posts about it in last May's MF discussion. I'll send
you privately the copies. We discussed emotions as "very refined"
biological patterns (carried by hormones and pheromones) and possible
"machine code" for social behavior (like DNA for biology). Far from
being an accepted official MOQ point, IMO it has been a good discussion.
> ---------
> 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?
Likewise.
> ----------
> >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.
>
We will see.
------------------
Happy new year
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 - 16:00:55 BST