On 22 Nov 2009 at 16:26, Andre Broersen wrote: > Platt to Andre: > > Sounds right to me. But in the Copleston papers Pirsig had this > cautionary note about "intuition." > > "Intuition sometimes is an equivalent of Dynamic Quality. However, it > also a kind of biological instinct. Since Western philosophy confuses > these two, the MOQ avoids the term." > > I think what you and I describe could also be termed "mystic > understanding." > > Andre; > Thanks for this Platt. I suppose within the MoQ this (mystic) > understanding, together with creativity, originality, inventiveness, > imagination, unstuckness (ZMM,p273) belong at the Code of art 'level'? > > A question popped in my head just now: can it not be argued that the > 'code of art' level is 'operative' within/without all static levels? > > Mmmm, need to think about this...and its implications as possibility
Hey Andre, Hmmmm. I need to think about this, too. Off-hand I attribute the creation of art to humans, not to governments, cockroaches or molecules. On the other hand, the evolutionary process appears to require creativity, originality and "unstuckness" unless, of course, one attributes its creation of new organisms to pure chance. Pirsig's description of Quality as an "aesthetic continuum" also ties in nicely with your question. Please let us know if your pondering bears further fruit. Regards, Platt 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/
