From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:07:19 BST
Hi Johnny:
> My point was that by maligning static patterns as locks to break free from,
> you contribute to the 'anything goes' relative morality syndrome that you
> dislike so much and blame post-modernism for.
I don't agree that wanting to break free from static patterns "maligns"
static patterns in any way.
> The absolutes you yearn for
> are static patterns, so you should be careful not to denounce static
> patterns.
Recognizing the existence of absolutes doesn't mean I "yearn" for them.
> Post modernists point out that absolutes only exist as shared
> static patterns embedded in culture(s), but do not denounce them like you
> do.
Postmodernists point out wrongly. Absolutes existed long before
cultures came along.
> We can learn from post modernists the importance of celebrating
> morality for being the coherent universe in which absolutes can be
> absolute.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
> Surely you can figure out some way to say what you were saying without
> denigrating morality so much.
I'm denigrating morality? How so?
> Gravity is not a bad law. Even if every protozoa had one one vote, they
> wouldn't vote to rescind it, they rely on gravity as much as rocketships
> do.
> It's not a trivial point, people will assume all static patterns are bad
> and it is evolution to thumb their noses at them, just because they are
> these dreaded static patterns that you deride. Static patterns are moral,
> not respecting a static pattern is immoral. When a bird flies, it does not
> "thumb its nose at gravity", it continues to rely on gravity for air
> pressure and remains respectful of gravity, that's why it flaps its wings
> all the time. It celebrates, in addition to gravity, billions of other
> static patterns that exist ON TOP OF gravity and rely on gravity. Pull
> gravity out from under it all and there won't be a moon for man to go to.
True. Which is why I never said gravity was "bad." Just that flying is
better than being stuck to the ground all the time.
> >Where did you find that "code of art?" Is that yours or somebody else's
> >idea? It's certainly not mine.
>
> Pirsig mentions the "code of art" - I don't have it in front of me exactly
> where, but all we need to note is that it is a CODE. A law, a pattern.
OK, what's the "law of art?"
> >A few examples of how "we" do all these things would help clarify your
> >point.
>
> Oh, writing a song, by starting from chords and styles as building blocks
> and twisting something a little in that Spinal Tap way, trying to create
> something that people will think is good.
What is a "Spinal Tap" way? Are you admitting something can be better
than old static patterns?
> >Just in case you're wondering, I completely
> >agree with Wim when he says:
> >
> >"It is the value of change that cannot be predicted on the basis of static
> >patterns of value that constitutes Dynamic Change. Strengthening existing
> >static patterns of value constitutes static quality."
>
> Change that cannot be predicted is nevertheless a result of static
> patterns, it's just that we didn't happen to predict it.
If all change is a result of static patterns, where did the first static
pattern come from?
> Aren't you a
> determinist like me and our mutual favorite Schopenhauer?
I like what Schopenhauer says about the central role of beauty in the
world. I'm not a determinist.
> >I also agree with Pirsig when he says:
> >
> >"Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of surprise. What the record did was
> >weaken for a moment your existing static patterns in such a way that the
> >Dynamic Quality all around you shone through. It was free, without static
> >forms." (9)
>
> Why does not every new record strike us as great, then?
Because not every new record is any good.
> The ones that we
> like are ones that fit our existing static patterns and extend them,
> affirming our expectations of what good music is.
To some extent, yes. But once in awhile a whole new and totally
unexpected sound blows you away. That's DQ.
> On those occasions when
> we hear something totally foreign to our ears and we like it, it is because
> we hear something in it that isn't foreign, some more fundamental pattern
> that we hadn't heard under the artifice of our favorite genre.
Can you site an example?
> But if we
> like it, it is because it is like some static pattern we know is good. All
> music has static form, perhaps Pirsigs music wears out for him because at
> first he is such a romantic clod that actually believes "the music is free,
> without static form" and when he realizes that it is as static as every
> other record in the universe and always has been, he gets depressed about
> it. He could keep liking it longer if he appreciated it for the way
> various static patterns came together in a great way.
Your whole philosophy boils down to, "There's nothing new under the
sun."
> >Your "Metaphysics of Expectations" precludes Dynamic surprises. Too
> >bad, because those "surprises" created you and me.
>
> Well, I might have been somewhat of a surprise to some people, but it's not
> like I was a virgin birth and couldn't have been predicted if all the
> circumstances were known. Don't know about you, but I suspect you had
> similar predictable origins.
> What my metaphics precludes is unreason.
What your metaphysics precludes is evolution.
> Platt, do me a favor and say something nice about Static Quality. Don't
> you see how deriding it creates the "anything goes" morality you blame post
> modernists for?
What's nice about static Quality is we wouldn't be here without it. Nor
would I be here without Dynamic Quality. As Pirsig says, both are
needed. But, given a choice, I'll always favor the new and the better over
the old and adequate.
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 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:08:26 BST