From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 13:34:03 GMT
Hi Steve,
> 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.
He puts Code of Art above code of Intellect in the passage where he talks
about his moral hierarchy, so it's definitely related to the levels.
"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." (Lila, 13)
> 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."
I see your point. Long ago the forum conversed at length about "the next
level." Nothing was resolved, so the question remains open. What I find
especially interesting in the quote is "what's good in life isn't defined
by . . . intellect . . ." That cuts the rug out from the secular humanists
who look to intellect to decide "what's good in life."
That art is high in the moral hierarchy is again revealed in the SODV
paper:
"This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of
connection between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to the
arts is that science explore the Conceptually Unknown in order to develop
a theory that will cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown.
The arts explore the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns
such as music, literature, painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that
produced them. This description, I think, is the rational connection
between science and the arts."
I think somewhere down the road there will be a shift from dependence on
science (intellect) to tell us what is real to reliance on the arts to
reveal ultimate truths. In a sense, we've already arrived because most
scientists insist that their formulas and theories be beautiful to be
valid.
Best,
Platt
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 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 13:33:34 GMT