> ROGER ASKS " ART THOU SERIOUS?"
>
> !Hey Amigos!
Avid: I couldn't believe my eyes when I read David and Platt's mail too.
> Platt:
> Avid’s Fusion Theory of Art may be helpful to some. But, for me it's
> far too complicated and, if I may say so, too scholarly.
AVID: Sorry if it complicated, it is always complicated to shift from one
metaphysics to another. The complications are of two sorts [that's all I can
think about now, but there can be more]:
1. Complication of structure - like using terms in a different theoretical
context and to justify the structure itself its implications and uses [this
is what I started to do and it is complicated.
2. Complication due to the need to hold [the fear of letting go of] one
[precious] ideas in times of metaphysical change. This is cowardice and
needs courage, not further explanations.
Pirsig in Lila was leaning more toward usage then structure "use it its
better for you". I can use this approach too if it's easier this way.
> ROGER:
> Imagine the MOQ to newbies! Complex issues deserve penetrating analysis.
Avid:
The analysis goes to structure, as justification of any advanced scientific
theory.....
> Dan:
> I agree. If MOQ cannot be explained to small children then that
explanation
> is too complex. Very intriguing intellectually, however. Thank you for
> sharing it with us, Avid.
Avid:
Thank you Dan to share this too. The explanation to small children goes to
how to use things [I can give you such simple explanation] but not regarding
to the structure or construction of things. Will you drive a car constructed
by children [average non genius children]?
I didn't think so.
What I take from your remark Dan is that my explanation was too complex, so
if it is interesting to you [because of the subject or because you don't
like too complicated for your understanding to exist] I suggest you break it
down to questions that will simplify the digestion of the data contained [as
you do with food].
> ROGER:
> Heck, David B.and I can't even agree on the simplest fundamentals of the
MOQ,
> let alone understand 'em. Now I was educated at California public
schools,
> so my credibility is suspect..... But David seems real smart!
Avid:
Come on people its a hard job to structure MoQ why don't we do it TOGETHER,
I'm sure that what intrigued you in MoQ will satisfy you here too. We need
badly to try to construct the MoQ structure to break free from the SOM
monopoly.
> Platt:
> Art is, first of all, an experience. The intellectual patterns come
> afterwards and are mostly irrelevant to the aesthetic experience.
Avid:
About Art I believe it deserves a different thread. I was not speaking ABOUT
art, but USING art to SUGGEST a POSSIBLE STRUCTURE of SPQ [static pattern of
quality].
But if you insist to talk about aesthetic experience and Art, how can you
tell its an aesthetic experience without having any analytic work done [as
primal experience]. If MoQ claims experience of quality comes first, how do
you recognize its quality as aesthetic? Now if we agree that recognizing
that it has to do with aesthetic category [aesthetic SPQ] and is not
possible without having an aesthetic SPQ, then tell me how is art [as art
SPQ] irrelevant to aesthetic SPQ?
> Dan:
> Beautifully put! :)
Avid:
You are offered an opportunity to explain the above too. :)
> ROGER:
> This reminds me of those posts that say how wrong it is to use language
and
> concepts to explain the unexplainable. They then of course never need to
> post again. (In fact didn't Avid himself take this position recently?)
AVID:
Dear dingo friend, don't confuse your love to bite with criticism [don't get
offended please].
Unexplainable is not what is not explained, but what CANNOT BE explained.
Language as explanation of meaning creates a eternal regression that makes
it impossible to understand. If we try to fully explain a term with the use
of a dictionary we will get more and more words to explain in an endless
chain. This is impossible. But Art can be taught, it can be practiced and
recognized, it can be explained, maybe quality in Art like any other quality
cannot be pinpointed [but this is old news to us] It is what we call DQ. But
this blur ideas people have about Art is exactly why I looked there for a
SPQ possible structure.
Art is not impossible to explain, it is difficult.
And while using Language we should be aware about language limitations
that's all. Use it, but know its limitation.
ROGER:
I am being facetious, and I know the Pirsig quotes saying something
similar
> IN HIS 800 PAGES OF PUBLISHED WORK!
>
> The point is that there is a place for mystic awareness and artistic
> enjoyment, and there is a place for metaphysical discussion and artistic
> analysis. And once in a rare while they all meet together and have tea
and
> crumpets (and hashish if Rich throws the party!). I haven't talked to
Rich
> since he left, but I am guessing he may have faced this same dichotomy..."
> why am I on a metaphysical medium when I want mystical experience?"
Avid:
To use Dan's words: > Beautifully put! :)
I believe that there is no mystical thread yet [Platt Dan and co. you are
free to establish it]. You are free also to criticize me, but don't try to
shut me up, for the [stupid] reason it is far too complicated.
ROGER:
> I believe the variety of intellectual and mystical is complementary.
Avid:
They act IMO as light and shadow [this beautiful analogy was made by Claude
Levi Strauss regarding Science and Magic]
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST