I have a quick thought and tell me what you think.
When does something move from dynamic "mysterious" quality into the
understandable static level. When does the threshold get crossed?
If we all acknowledge the asthetic nature of dynamic quality and seem to
share it's meaning, does that not make it static? The very fact that we are
acknowledging it as something real, a concept beyond interpretation, doesn't
it then become static? Has the aesthetic moved from being dynamic quality to
simply another static level? This is a serious question and probebly the
biggest source of the debate in the MOQ. Even saying "dynamic quality" makes
it a static concept.
The words "Dynamic quality" are meaningless, they represent what cannot be
put into words. When you finally understand dynamic quality you have
completely lost it. By understanding it, it has become static.
This is why I believe that there is a static level emerging above
intellectual, because we are all cool with Quality. It is not mysterious
any more, we have put it into words and we agree that it exists. But more
so, it has changed our view of what is "dynamic quality", which can never be
understood.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David Buchanan
Sent: March 9, 2002 11:42 AM
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
Subject: RE: MD Oldest idea
DMB to Bo:
> Well, OK. I'm fixated. But at least Pirsig is with me in this. He sees no
> level beyond the intellect either. (DQ is beyond, but its not a level and
> we can't use it to describe anything because its beyond words too.)
. . . . .
>Here's the thing - we
> agree that the MOQ is beyond SOM. Beyond all the frustrating
> misunderstandings, we really disagree where the MOQ belongs. You say its
> beyond the intellect and I say its not. Pirsig is with me on that too. His
> MOQ has no 5th level.
Platt said...
Pirsig is with you? Then you are going to have to explain away the
following from Chap. 13.
"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life-
conventional morals -proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery,
theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the
supremacy of the intellectual order over the -social order-democracy,
trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a
fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call
it a "code of Art" or something like that, but art is usually thought of as
such a frill that that title undercuts its importance. The morality of the
brujo in Zuni-that was Dynamic morality."
Platt said...
Why would Pirsig even consider that DQ and Art could be connected, or
that a level higher than intellect might be called a "code of Art?" He
"sees" the possibility with his supposition. He leaves the door open a
crack, allowing for a possible future when art is not thought of as a frill,
but essential.
IMO, the MOQ can be considered art in the same way that scientists
find art in efficacious mathematical formulas. In both it's aesthetic
harmony that counts.
DMB says in response....
How about if I explain it without explaining it AWAY? I can see what you're
saying, but disagree simply because a code is not a level. The code of art,
"which isn't a code", is about DQ acting on the static levels as a creative
and evolutionary force. Its not about the conflict between two levels, but
rather between all levels and DQ itself. Granted, if and when a fifth level
ever emerges it will be the code of art that lets it happen, but at this
point any talk of a fifth level is pure speculation. It took several billion
years to get this far and at this point the 4th level is still under
development. I should add that the term "art" in this code of art isn't to
be taken too literally, as you clearly recognize. Bohr and the Brujo need
not be painters or poets to be considered artists in this Pirsigian sense.
And I think we agree that the author uses the term because he's refering to
the effect of the undifferentiated AESTHETIC continuum upon the static
world.
DMB
P.S. I realize that my vigorous disagreement with your politics is probably
a little unpleasant, but please don't construe that as a personal attack or
any kind of blanket condemnation. We have plenty of other stuff to talk
about, you ultra ditto-head, you. :-)
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
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 - 16:01:57 BST