In a message dated 5/11/02 6:30:07 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
<< "That of course is the central definition of 'beauty' from the time of
Plato
and Plotinus to the Scholastic's: an object possesses beauty to the
extent that it is transparent to the Divine, the it allows the One to shine
through it. Likewise, a work of art is beautiful (and good and true) to the
extent that it is translucent to nondual Spirit, that it lies which is
beyond
itself to shine through--as Mondrian said, to the extent that it
aesthetically expresses the universal. And correlatively, an artist is
'good' to the extent that he or she can detach from the ego or transcend
the separate self-sense and allow superconscious to flow through him
or her into the work of art."
Substitute Quality for Spirit, the One, the universal, superconscious, the
Divine, etc. and you find Pirsig and Wilber preaching a similar gospel.
But nowhere did Pirsig make such a vivid description of what art was
really about. And, of course, "beauty" has been the ax on which I have
ground many a previous post because IMO it is the manifest
expression of DQ breaking through and transcending all other values.
Platt >>
Hi Platt,
Plotinus argues that beauty cannot be the One because we know beauty and the
One is beyond knowing. Also, beauty can be shocking, therefore it can be
differentiated from the good.
The Good or the One is described by Plotinus as the super beautiful ot beauty
beyond beauty.
To sum up, the One is prior to beauty.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:15 BST