MD Code of Art

From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 16:14:54 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "MD Understanding Quality And Power"

    Hi Platt, all

    Platt said to msh:
    > The Code of Art level was hinted at by Pirsig. I think it will
    > be the next evolutionary step, but unfortunately I won't be around to
    > see
    > it. Maybe one of my paintings will survive long enough to be a part of
    > it.
    >

    I don't interpret Code of Art to be a level as in a type of pattern.
    Pirsig uses the term "moral codes" frequently in Lila. I think he uses
    it to refer to rules for establishing moral supremacy between levels
    rather than saying that the code itself is a specific level.

    Platt is referring to this: "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..."

    I think Pirsig is referring to the Dynamic-static moral code as in this
    quote:

    "The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of morals,

    there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic,

    social-biological, intellectual-social, and Dynamic-static. This last,
    the

    Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't defined by society
    or

    intellect or biology."

    So I don't see Pirsig as suggesting that there are such things as
    "artful patterns of value." He says that everything fits into the 4
    static levels plus DQ.

    What do you think?

    Thanks,
    Steve

    More examples of Pirsig's use of codes follow:

    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 a such
    a

    frill that that title undercuts its importance. The morality of the
    brujo

    in Zuńi-that was Dynamic morality.

    What's at issue here isn't just a clash of society and biology but a
    clash

    of two entirely different codes of morals in which society is the middle

    term. You have a society-vs.-biology code of morals and you have an

    intellect-vs.-society code of morals. It wasn't Lila Rigel was
    attacking,

    it was this intellect-vs.-society code of morals.

    The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of morals,

    there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic,

    social-biological, intellectual-social, and Dynamic-static. This last,
    the

    Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't defined by society
    or

    intellect or biology.  What's good is freedom from domination by any
    static

    pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by the
    destruction of

    the patterns themselves.

     

    This soup of sentiments about logically non-existent entities can be

    straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is
    meant

    by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-society,
    the

    moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of
    speech;

    freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus;
    government by

    consent-these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-society issues.

    According to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not
    just

    a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are

    essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level
    of

    life. They are for real.

    But what the Metaphysics of Quality also makes clear is that this

    intellect-vs-society code of morals is not at all the same as the

    society-vs.-biology codes of morals that go back to a prehistoric time.

    They are completely separate levels of morals. They should never be

    confused.

    The central term of confusion between these two levels of codes is

    "society." Is society good or is society evil? The question is confused

    because the term "society" is common to both these levels, but in one
    level

    society is the higher evolutionary pattern and in the other it is the

    lower. Unless you separate these two levels of moral codes you get a

    paralyzing confusion as to whether society is moral or immoral. That

    paralyzing confusion is what dominates all thoughts about morality and

    society today.

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 18:17:51 GMT