From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 20:20:37 BST
Hi Platt,
Your thoughts are eloquently stated. That you've given this subject much
consideration is obvious. I never can find the words. I feel the thoughts
are all there, but the words will not form into coherent sentences. It's
very frustrating because art/painting is very important to me. And I'd
like to talk about it. Your words are elegant.
I'm not so against cultural music as you. I love flamenco, classical music
and opera, but I like rock too. I do think that most of the music that you
hear the last few years is not created by musicians, but by
corporations. When corporations create music, 'it is a product
of the untalented'. Cultural music is in a big slump. But even when the
musicians are making the music, I don't think that it's to create
"beauty". It is music, most often, that reflects and rejects the obsolete
rules (SQ) of the cultural elite. And that has a beauty of its own.
I think I'd like to find that short story by John Galsworthy.
MarshaV
At 08:20 AM 6/16/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>More notes on Beauty, Art and DQ
>
>--Schopenhauer is one of my favorite philosophers. I like him because, to
>quote Will Durant , "He saw that the ultimate good is beauty, and that
>ultimate joy lies in creating and cherishing the beautiful."
>
>--Is there "progress" in art?. No. There has never been, nor possibly
>ever be, a more profound depiction of animals than on the caves of
>Lascaux. Beauty doesn't improve with time.
>
>--Making music for cultural impact is simply money grubbing or political
>propaganda. Making music to reflect the goodness of ultimate beauty has
>always been every artist's challenge, today more than ever. What passes
>for music in today's "culture" was best described by Al Capp: "A product
>of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."
>Case in point: the Superbowl half time show.
>
>--There is a form of understanding beyond the scientifically intellectual,
>the Mu understanding, thinking without thought, the aesthetic experience
>of Dynamic Quality, beyond words but real.
>
>--I have felt the "lightness" of DQ infrequently but certainly something I
>don't quickly forget. One instance occurred to me while standing in front
>of a small painting by Monet at the San Francisco museum. In fact, now
>that I think about it, most of my "transformations" have been brought
>about when experiencing art of one kind or another-- painting, sculpture,
>music, literature. A recent example is now in the forum, a short story by
>John Galsworthy simply entitled, "Quality." As I read the final lines, I
>felt a sudden connection with the beauty of immediate reality so strong
>that it brought tears to my eyes.
>
>--There's an MOQ attitude that's different from SOM, an attitude of "Push
>on until you capture the beauty of the thing, because if it isn't
>beautiful, you really haven't got it yet." Great scientists, dedicated
>SOMers all, have this attitude. They understand its importance. They may
>even realize that without this element of quality, their endeavors within
>the SOM structure and the structure itself may ultimately fail.
>
>--Just when I think I have it all intellectually figured out, I'm realize
>fooling myself. There will always be a gaping hole in our efforts to
>explain reality if for no other reason than we cannot stand outside of it
>to see all of it. Our models omit the mind that creates the model. If that
>isn't enough to give pause to those who think they can explain what makes
>the world go around, they should remember that at the bottom of physics
>one disappears into the hole of the Uncertainty Principle, and at the
>bottom of math and logic an even larger bottomless crevice called the
>Incompleteness Theorem stands ready to swallow all who claim to have the
>answers. Any philosophy or worldview can be shredded by both intellectual
>and emotional attacks, usually combined for added force. Even "objective"
>science is under fire by the guns of the postmodernists who claim as a
>fact that there are no facts. The more I try to get it all down pat, the
>more I realize the effort is a chimera. Except for one thing. Beauty. It
>was beauty that began my quest for answers years ago, and it is still
>beauty that sustains me through the swirling darkness of doubt. When words
>fail, beauty begins. It renders explanation and understanding besides the
>point. Beauty (and its companion, art) originally attracted me to Pirsig's
>Metaphysic of Quality, for I associate quality with beauty. The error and
>folly lies in the attempt to verbalize what can't be. Pirsig admits as
>much. Writing philosophy-then arguing about it is degenerate. Ah, but
>being human, we do it anyway. To borrow a phrase, the only person who
>doesn't pollute the beauty of the world with intellect is a person who
>hasn't yet been born. The rest of us have to settle for being something
>less pure.
>
>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
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 16 2004 - 20:34:05 BST