Hi Platt
Apologies for not continuing our previous conversation in a similar vein
- I got waylaid by music!
Hmmm, tricky one this.
The codes that Pirsig talks about illustrate the way a higher static
level dominates the static level below - organic dominates inorganic,
social dominates organic, intellect dominates social. He then talks of a
'dynamic morality' and says that it isn't really a code, not exactly
anyway, more like a 'code of art'.
In the context it appears, this 'code of art' describes a relationship
between DQ ('dynamic morality') and intellect. It's not really a code
because it involves an undefinable element (DQ) and a definable element,
intellect. If it was a code, in the sense of the previous codes he
refers to, then it would mean that DQ is defined, which it can't be
according to the MoQ. Instead of a code maybe we should call it the
'intellect-DQ relationship' or something similar. The way in which Art
and Intellect interact. The artistic (dynamic) element dominates
intellect but is dependent upon it, just as intellect dominates social
but is dependent upon it, social dominates organic but is dependent etc.
in the evolutionary structure of the MoQ's hierarchy.
What I think this means is that although intellect is subordinate to
art, art is not possible without intellect - in the same way that the
social level is subordinate to intellect but intellect would not be
possible without the social level. Given that art is unique to humans
(I'm not aware of art existing elsewhere i.e. in other animals), then
the 'intellect-DQ relationship' is also unique to humans. So when we
create music or a painting or a novel (or whatever) then we imply that,
as art, it has a unique relationship to human intellect. Intellect is
necessary but not dominant. The act of creating is dynamic but the
result is static may be another way of putting it. Maybe!
Re: your question "... the MoQ, like art, isn't static, or shouldn't be
anyway." you would have to consider whether there is an element of art
in the MoQ (creation) and what relationship does that have to the
intellectual pattern that is the MoQ. If you're saying that the MoQ is
art then, by implication, it can't be defined and as such is not a
metaphysics. I think the best way I can think of at the moment to answer
this is to say that the relationship of DQ to the MoQ is covered by the
'intellect-DQ relationship'. In this way Quality (DQ/SQ) gives a defined
element (SQ - MoQ) and an undefined element (DQ) as the relationship.
Pirsig created the MoQ (artistic) and the result is a static pattern.
I'm not sure if this is the best answer or the one you want to hear but
anyway, that's my initial take on it.
Cheers
Horse
On 28/06/2010 20:20, Platt Holden wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Platt
Where did Pirsig say this? I believe he talked about a code of art and this
was in the context of relating Intellect to DQ. If there is a level of art
then it becomes static quality - something that art is not - or shouldn't be
anyway!
Cheers
Horse
Hi Horse,
Chapter 13 of Lila. The context is the supremacy of higher moral codes of
lower with the top being Dynamic morality which might be called a code of
art From Pirsig's comments about the MOQ being open to improvements
(philosophy vs. philosophology) I presume the MOQ, like art, isn't static,
or shouldn't be anyway. What do you think?
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
