Hi Scott:
> On the question of whether one can speak of artistic endeavor as another
> level. I'm inclined to say no, because it is the creation of new patterns,
> rather than being a pattern of its own. That is, how is it different from
> DQ? But I'm also inclined to say yes, since maybe there are patterns to
> creativity (Koestler, for one, wrote a book on this: The Act of Creation,
> though I don't remember it being all that successful), and also because I
> like to think that "everybody an artist (and yes, that can include
> mathematicians, scientists, metaphysicians, and brujos)" sounds like a
> plausible next stage for humanity.
>
> As to the time factor, you're ignoring that the intellectual level is
> different from the preceding levels in that it can, and does (as we are
> doing here) examine itself. That, after all, is what philosophy, at least
> since Kant, is largely about: intellect seeing the limits of intellect.
> This has reached a fever pitch in postmodernism, so one might wonder if the
> intellectual level is already in its last stages (not in the sense that it
> disappears, but that it ceases to be the top dog).
You've framed the question of an artistic fifth level beautifully. If there is
to be any further expansion of the MOQ theory, it will be in precisely the
direction you suggest. Using selected quotes from the MOQ to support
our beliefs about how others should act in the name of "humanity" or
"dignity" is great fun, but won't carry us very far from established
convictions. As Pirsig wrote in Chap. 2:
"It's very easy to spend your whole life swishing old tea around in your
cup thinking it's great stuff because you've never really tried anything
new, because you could never get it in, because the old stuff prevented
it's entry because you were so sure the old stuff was good, because
you never tried anything new . . . on and on in an endless circular
pattern."
That I have just used a Pirsig quote to support my own preconceptions
exemplifies the paradoxical nature, and thus the limits, of thought. At
the bottom of physics--uncertainty. At the bottom of math/logic--
incompleteness. The Achilles heal of the intellectual level is intellect's
inability to prove its validity in its own terms. Recognition of intellect's
limits is becoming increasingly evident as you suggest.
The way forward is expressed well by Pirsig in the SODV paper:
" . . .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."
That this site has attracted both artists and scientists indicates to me
that his words, and yours, are prophetic. Please share more of your
ideas along these line.
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 - 16:01:57 BST