Platt,
I've just received your message.... so I reopen for a while the thread.
>
> Sorry for the delay in replying to your post of Dec. 23. I was away
> for a few days over Christmas. I think we agree on many aspects
> of art/intellect issue.
>
> > Good definitions for art. More generally, according to Pirsig, I'm
using
> > RT as the term indicating all what's "well done", just to
distinguish
> > Einstein from Picasso. Both "RTists", but only the latter is,
according
> > to the common term, an artist. As the whole discussion is about
whether
> > Picasso was an intellectual, I must use two different terms.
>
> Pirsig agrees with you. He defines art as "high
> quality endeavor."
You surely noticed that also Roger suggested this point, and we agreed
on it.
> So both Einstein and Picasso were artists.
Likewise,
> Perhaps under that definition you and I and others who participate
> in this discussion might also be considered artists. Do you
> consider our endeavors high quality? I do.
Of course. :-)
> But beautiful, no--
> except in rare cases where someone that captures the essence of
> the MOQ in a line or two.
Rare cases (and probably not the same for everyone) , but sometimes it
happens.These rare cases are probably the Highest Quality results of our
endeavors.
Beauty is the most moral result of intellectual/artistic endeavors.
> IMO, without the presence of beauty
> there is no art, and its at this juncture that I part company with
> Pirsig.
hmmm.... Isn't it like to say that "without the presence of emotions
(IMO, q-social code) - there is no biology", or that "without the
presence of language (IMO, q-intellectual code) there is no society"?
Not all the biology produces emotions and society. Not all the society
produces language and intellect. So, not all intellectual/artistic
endeavors produce beauty. Only the best ones, those looking above at the
possible future development of a new level based upon beauty.
>
> > > Some have argued that beauty and DQ are synonymous. Perhaps
> > > so. But in Chap. 30 of "Lila" Pirsig writes, "Static social and
> > > intellectual patterns are only an intermediate level of
evolution." If
> > > we take him at his word, then there are new levels, above the
> > > intellectual, to come. And the next new level, as Pirsig
suggested,
> > > might be called a "code of art."
> > >
> >
> > IMO beauty is not equivalent to DQ. Of course it depends on our
> > agreement about the terms we use....
> >
> > Of course we can find beauty everywhere. But it's hard to say that
the
> > carbon atoms created DNA for its beauty. Or that the ancient humans
> > decided to live in tribes 'cause it was beautiful. To describe the
input
> > for those evolutions we have the term DQ and it's enough. DNA and
tribes
> > were created as it was "better".
> >
> > If I look at the Niagara falls, I find the beauty of nature... but
this
> > "me" finding beauty is a person, and is behaving according to a four
> > level logic. In facts, if I fall down into the water, and the stream
> > leads me towards the falls, my biological self will have the high
> > priority, and the falls will be not so beautiful....
> >
> > And also socially it's hard to recognize the value of such a beauty.
The
> > contemplation of nature is a nonsense, according to the social logic
of
> > success, celebrity, usefulness.
> >
> > Intellectually... this is the point. From a scientific point of
view,
> > beauty remains a nonsense, so it could be another level, above. But,
> > tell me. If it is another level, where is beauty now? Now that the
> > levels are four? I don't deny the possibility to have a fifth level
of
> > beauty in the future... but as long as it is not a level of its own,
IMO
> > art, carrier of beauty, is the dynamic side of intellect. Just like
> > philosophy, carrier of knowledge, has been for centuries the dynamic
> > side of society.
> >
> > In few words, I do prefer to use the term DQ to point to the
necessity
> > of
> > excellence which is pertinent at all levels. IMO the capacity to
> > appreciate beauty is a very high quality pattern, maybe proper only
of
> > humans, surely active when the biological and social selves are left
in
> > a secondary position... and when intellect abandons for a while its
> > static positions in order to grasp DQ.
> >
> > Yes, beauty is the name intellect uses when talks about DQ. Beauty
is
> > the "better" of intellect.
>
> You make an excellent case for DQ and beauty not being
> synonymous. I think the connection is so close as to be almost
> indistinguishable. But I admit to having no counter arguments to
> your points. Thanks to you I will have to reconsider some of my
> previous conclusions and do a better job of placing art in level
> above intellect, if indeed such is the case.
>
Well, DQ and beauty are indistinguishable as IMO at the current step of
evolution beauty is the next step. It's enough distinguish beauty and
art. If we look at the DNA example, DNA is inorganic, while the genetic
information, carried by DNA, are the basic code of biology. Likewise,
beauty, carried by art, is the basic code for the new level. So art is
on this intellectual/artistic side, beauty is the possible bridge to the
other side.
> > Actually, as you suggest, art is a "conscious" activity. When the
RTist
> > performs his/her own skill, is consciously and intellectually trying
to
> > translate DQ into sQ. He/she is an intellectual knocking on heaven's
> > door.
>
> Does "conscious activity" always mean "intellectual?" Maybe. It seems
> there are as many definitions of "intellectl" as there are
> participants in this discussion group. But I agree that the purpose
> of art is to translate ones experience of DQ into SQ so as to
> generate the experience of DQ in others. (For me at least, Picasso
> failed to accomplish this.) And, "knocking on heaven's door" is a
> beautiful phrase to describe our reaching out for DQ. It reminds
> me of Edgar Allen Poe's words:
>
> "The artist struggles to create such supernal beauty, to make one
> see or hear with shivering delight a sight of sound which cannot
> have been unfamiliar to angels."
>
> I won't be satisfied until I can give beauty its rightful place in the
> MOQ scheme of things. You, Danila, Roger and others have
> helped me think more deeply about this problem, for which many
> thanks.
>
Let me know if we are in agreement, in the end. My suggestion of beauty
as "stairway to heaven" (so, after Bob Dylan, I quoted also Led
Zeppelin!) is after all directly derived from your thoughts about art
and beauty.
Thanks
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