Hi John B., Sam:
It is no secret that I side with Sam (and Pirsig) on the superior value of the
aesthetic. Also, I side with Sam (and Pirsig) in believing that by
adopting a Quality perspective, art and science are integrated with no
need to partake in some formal "transformative practice." (If I've taken
your name in vain, Sam, please correct and forgive me.)
As is my wont, quotations from Pirsig will serve to support my claims.
The first has to do with "truth" which I feel both of you gentleman have
correctly defined within SOM (or as Sam says, "scientific/modernist
thinking") but need to also to consider Pirsig's "aesthetic" definition:
"If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things-that which corresponds to the
"objective" world-and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or
excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for
more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the
absolute 'Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to
the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual
realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with
an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy
and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual
reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality
than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and
current patterns of values." (Chapter 8)
Regarding the integration of art and science, Pirsig directly contradicts
Wilber's thesis that we must be born again:
"In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance art was defined as high
quality endeavor. I have never found a need to add anything to that
definition. But one of the reasons I have spent so much time in this
paper describing the personal relationship of Werner Heisenberg and
Niels Bohr in the development of quantum theory is that although the
world views science as a sort of plodding, logical methodical
advancement of knowledge, what I saw here were two artists in the
throes of creative discovery. They were at the cutting edge of
knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something out of
that unknown into a static form that would be of value to everyone. As
Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two different
complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the largest sense
it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences
because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never
really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the
same human purpose." (SODV Paper)
Finally, I agree with Sam's point that "elegance" and "simplicity," which
John seemed to consider as separate values from art and beauty,
actually come under the umbrella of the aesthetic, as do many of the
words in the quotation John used about Gestalt Therapy such as
"clear, vivid, brightness, clarity, unity, fascination, grace, vigor." From the
quotation, one might easily conclude that Gestalt Therapy would be
most effectively undertaken in an art museum. (-:
Finally, finally. A question for both Sam and John. You know the famous
(Platonic I believe) formulation of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Do you
agree that those three "absolutes" are now subservient to Quality
which, with the coming of MOQ, is now the metaphysical top dog? Or
is it better to simply place Goodness at the top with Truth and Beauty
underneath? No big deal--just curious.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:38 BST