From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 23:53:55 BST
Hey Steve,
STEVE
In talking about art, the art is always
> missing....
RICK
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying that conversation
about art isn't itself art, then I'd ask you why there can't be an "art of
talking about art"? However, if you are saying that conversation about art
isn't itself the art being discussed, then I'd have to ask you what the
significance of your observation is. I mean, conversation about snow-tires
isn't a set of snow-tires... but so what?
STEVE
I didn't mean to imply that talking about
> art is a bad idea, it just has it limitations.
RICK
What are the limitations of conversation about art? And does conversation
about art have greater limitations (or less value) than conversation about
other subjects? If so, why?
PIRSIG
"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."
STEVE
> I have been thinking of dynamic morality in the sense of the usual usage
of
> the word "morality"--not as types of patterns but as a code of conduct.
>
> The MOQ distinguishes two categories of morals to help us understand their
> purpose. AsI understand what Pirsig is saying, some of our morality
exists
> to control biological patterns, which is the social-biological moral code.
> Some morals exist to free the intellect from society which make up the
> social-intellectual code.
>
> Dynamic morality is a moral code like these (not a static level)....
RICK
I agree. I believe the Pirsig quote is about the 4 moral 'codes' of MoQ...
biological>inorganic, sociological>biological, intellectual>sociological,
dynamic>static. It is not suggesting a fifth static level of "Art".
STEVE
I see Dynamic morality as what the MOQ
> offers us in place of the static absolute right and wrong that people have
> unsuccessfully tried to uncover for so long. Since static patterns change
> over time, there are no moral absolutes or fixed standards for behavior
that
> are universally best for all time. "Best" is a moving target and so the
> morality that we must follow if we hope to achieve it is dynamic.
RICK
Agreed. In your most recent post to Platt you described the 4th code as a
"code that can't be codified", I agree with that too and I think that's what
Pirsig meant when he wrote "...there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't
a code". It's actually sort of funny, he calls the Dynamic morality a "code
of art" but in the same breath tells us that it isn't a code and that
describing it as art arguably undercuts its importance.
take care
rick
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 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 23:54:13 BST