Bodvar! Andre! Great posts! I ask, may you define this "code of art"? this "Je-Ne-Sais-Quoi"? The aestetic?
Question, what shapes this event? does the intellectual, social, biological and inorganic shape this aestetic? this code of art? some would say that this is what it is, the culmination of the static levels. DQ was never lost, we simply contend that this aestetic is different for each individual, for each individual is composed of unique arrangements of the four levels. It may not be universalized, this "code of art", "dynamic Quality", "Quality". It is argueable just how much the 4 levels shape this aestetic. This preference for beauty and it's definition. Pirsig says that it is undefineable in any universal sense BUT it IS VERIFIABLE ! what defines this verifiability is the universal definitions of intellectual, social, biological and organic patterns. (static Quality) NOW for the BIG questions: 1: ) IS the "code of ART" a product of static Quality? 2:) If so, does it require a level? or is it to be known as Dynamic Quality? Going the way of defining a level to represent the "code of art" takes steps towards conceptualization of it in abstractions. Universalizing the individual expereince. (back to logical positivism and analytic philosophy) Going the way of defining it as "Dynamic Quality", Is what REALLY leaves the "code of art" free, to be anything, any intellectual, society, organism and yes, inorganic pattern deems it to be. Now, who will be the first to decide what the "code of art" IS for the universe? ________________________________ From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:26:57 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Instant Karma Andrè and Group. 20 Nov.you wrote: > Thank you for assisting me in trying to weave myself out of this > slump, this mental block as I described it. After a while I remembered > Pirsig's way of dealing with this....take a break, have a > coffee...stare at the thing for a while. Well, I have and something > came to me. > Whether is is real or perceived I am concerned about the 'DQ' part of > reality within the intellectual formulation called MoQ (Pirsigs own > words).Maybe disagreements will remain about interpretations, however, > for myself, I would like some clarity.. I must confess that this post made my day, week, month ... the whole "chronology". I will return to it later, but must point to one particular paragraph where you surpass your tutors. > There is another level above the ones already mentioned: the 5th code > of morals: the Dynamic-static one! (Lila p307) and then it dawned on > me...that is where the MoQ is!! It is the level earlier identified as > the 'code of Art' (Lila p167). > THE CODE OF ART = THE METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY!!!!!!!!! IT IS THE 5TH > LEVEL CODE OF MORALS!! DYNAMIC MORALITY!! > Pirsig argued/proved and rationally showed that 'art' is not a > 'frill': that it underlines its importance! ( op cit, 167) The > Dynamic-static code,says 'what is good in life isn't defined by > society *or* intellect or biology. > And all of a sudden I found Static/Dynamic quality again (the very > 'foundation' upon which this MoQ is built and deduced)...not in the > intellectual formulation (as Pirsig has it) no, but as a code of > dynamic morality arising out of intellect...supreme to it. (I can > accept SQ as Intell. PoV's but then they are high quality PoV's and > SOM is low quality). And in this formulation they are kept within > overall/ overriding Quality. > The MoQ is thus saved from attack and from being undermined by > whatever intellectual pattern is around at present. The MoQ does not > only subsume but also rises above this pattern.It remains dynamic. The > MoQ can claim supremacy over the intellectual level. (this may be > disputed by some of you). With the 'code of Art' as the 5th level, it > has supremacy over Intellectual PoV's and DQ is saved. I have previously claimed that the MOQ is the system that contains the MOQ*), no 5th static level that so many keep harping on yet something beyond the 4th. level, but haven't really used the "code of art beyond intellect" that Pirsig speaks about to promote the SOL interpretation. Maybe Platt has (he is the aesthetician) but I haven't paid enough attention. Anyway, you Andrè has made this connection. Great! *) "Containing itself" is possible (the congruity theorem) while the smaller container containing the bigger is impossible. See you Bodvar 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/ 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/
