Hi Horse, Thanks for your response. I agree that the MOQ isn't clear about either the meaning of art or whether or not we can consider it to be a level of its own. Certainly much of modern abstract painting art is anti-intellectual in that rejects portraying everyday "objective" reality. Given the "anti" nature of higher levels toward lower, this would put art a level above the intellectual level. But "art" itself is such an abstract term that it's meaning varies all of the lot, like "justice" and "freedom." In fact, "Quality" suffers from the same lack of preciseness. Pirsig illustrated the stark value differences between individuals in his three main characters, Phaedrus, Rigel and Lila. In the end it was John Wooden Leg who summed up the MOQ's "weltanschauung" in four words, "That's a good dog." But, your good dog is probably different than my good dog. One's individual history of experience, perception and thought seems determinant of quality, making a metaphysics of it which strives for universality somewhat arbitrary.
Anyway, you've given me something to think about. For that, thanks. Regards, Platt Hi Platt On 07/05/2010 23:46, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Horse, > I think reality can be known without concepts -- the hot stove example -- a > pre- > intellectual understanding of the Quality reality. To rationally communicate > that understanding to somebody else, however, requires we use a "menu" of > static intellectual patterns consisting of subjects and objects, the > fundamental nature of language. > Music and art are also ways of communicating what we experience (reality). Art also relates to intellect without necessarily being subject or object or even rational. > But, that brings up a question I've been wondering about. Is poetry (metaphor) > within the intellectual level? Or is it more within the code of art? Or is it > a > bridge between the two, like the link between art and science at the cutting > edge of the unknown? > > Would appreciate your thoughts. > Personally I don't think that Pirsig was particularly clear about the "Code of Art" that's mentioned in Lila. The way I see his statement about the code of art in the passage where it appears is that he was describing relationships between the levels that establish dominance of the higher level over the lower - i.e. links between the levels. As he also stated that there were only 4 levels of static patterns and DQ I've always thought of the code of art as the relationship between intellect and DQ in terms of the way artists create their art. There is an element of Intellect involved as I discussed in an earlier post. I think poetry and all other artistic activities require intellect as part of their creation - I can't think of any way that it couldn't be involved but that it isn't necessarily a major part of the whole process and experience. Not being in any way familiar with writing poetry I can't say with any certainty, but similarly with other art forms, the poet isn't just scribbling down words - he's looking at the way they scan and how he feels about the mood he's creating and a whole bunch of other things. As I said above, I don't think it would be possible to create art without intellect and similarly intellect is vital to appreciating art - if you don't understand or can't interpret metaphor or other aspects of poetry how would you fully appreciate a poem. So, no, I don't think that poetry is entirely within the intellectual level but I do think that intellect is involved and not necessarily in terms of subject or object. The degree to which intellect is involved will also vary from one artistic experience to another. 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/md/archives.html
