At 09:32 AM 1/26/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
> > Steve:
> > The reason there can be no level of art is because the levels denote
> > types of patterns of value. Let's think about what "the code of art"
> > would be as a level. We would need to infer patterns for this
> > "dynamic morality" based on response to DQ. But DQ is "always new"
> > and "comes as a surprise" which suggests no patterns will be
> > forthcoming.
>
>Good point. But Pirsig describes DQ as a process:
>
>"But in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the
>Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater
>levels of versatility, and freedom."
>
>This "process" looks like a pattern to me. But maybe that's because any
>description of DQ would necessarily result in a symbolic static pattern of
>words.
Hi Platt,
Isn't Quality (Dynamic & Static) process? Do you understand it differently?
>As an aside I can't help but think that if something can't be put into
>words, it's existence becomes a matter of faith.
I wonder about this. There are experiences that are beyond my
ability to find appropriate words to explain them. That doesn't seem
to diminish the experience for me, but might require some kind of
faith from a listener that I'm not spouting complete nonsense or "new
age" gibberish?
Marsha
*************
DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
