From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 23:22:09 BST
Platt quoted Lila:
The first good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality.
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.
But wouldn't that mean that EVERYONE hearing ANY record for the first time
would like it? Why would some people like it but not others? The Dynamic
Quality is the same, isn't it, and it is without static forms, isn't it?
Johnny
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org, owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Gauguin
>Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:04:46 -0400
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>You wrote:
> > I'm soon to see the Gauguin exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
> >
> > I'm interested in hearing MOQ ideas that might relate to Art, and add to
> > the experience. Seeing art is never just sensual, at least not for me.
> > I'd like to hear your perspectives.
>
>My perspective is exactly that of Pirsig's, only he expresses it so much
>better that I've taken the liberty of quoting him at length below. For me,
>this is one of the most important passages in "Lila" because it describes
>the experience of responding to Dynamic Quality, an experience that most
>people have had at one time or another, however fleeting. I hope you enjoy
>Gauguin at the Boston museum. Personally I liked the paintings there by
>Monet, Degas and Van Gogh more, especially Monet who once engendered the
>DQ response in me. Please let us know if anything during your visit to the
>museum comes close to the DQ experience for you. Best regards, Platt
>
>"In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart, morals
>being concerned with the subject quality and art with object quality. But
>in the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the
>same. They both become much more intelligible when references to what is
>subjective and what is objective are completely thrown away and references
>to what is static and what is Dynamic are taken up instead.
>
>"He found an example within the field of music. He said, imagine that you
>walk down a street past, say, a car where someone has the radio on and it
>plays a tune you've never heard before but which is so fantastically good
>it just stops you in your tracks. You listen until it's done. Days later
>you remember exactly what that street looked like when you heard that
>music. You remember what was in the store window you stood in front of.
>You remember what the colors of the cars in the street were, where the
>clouds were in the sky above the buildings across the street, and it all
>comes back so vividly you wonder what song they were playing, and so you
>wait until you hear it again. If it's that good you'll hear it again
>because other people will have heard it too and have had the same feelings
>and that will make it popular. One day it comes on the radio again and you
>get the same feeling again and you catch the name and you rush down the
>street to the record store and buy it and can hardly wait until you can
>get it home and play it.
>
>"You get home. You play it. It's really good. It doesn't quite transform
>the whole room into something different but it's really good. You play it
>again. Really good. You play it another time. Still good, but you're not
>so sure you want to play it again. But you play it again. It's okay but
>now yon definitely don't want to play it again. You put it away.
>
>"The next day you play it again, and it's okay, but something is gone. You
>still like it and always will, you say. You play it again. Yeah, that's
>sure a good record. But you file it away and once in a while play it again
>for a friend and maybe months or years later bring it out as a memory of
>something you were once crazy about. "Now what has happened? You can say
>you've gotten tired of the song but what does that mean? Has the song lost
>its quality? If it has, why do you still say it's a good record? Either
>it's good or it's not good. If it's good why don't you play it? If it's
>not good why do you tell your friend it's good?
>
>"If you think about this question long enough you will come to see that
>the same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that
>exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first
>good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. 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.
>The second good, the kind that made you want to recommend it to a friend,
>even when you had lost your own enthusiasm for it, is static quality.
>Static quality is what you normally expect." (Lila, 9)
>
>.
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
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 Jun 09 2004 - 23:47:56 BST