[Mark]
One of my interests is drawing in the masses, as I try to do in
conversations outside of this forum.
[Arlo]
What I like about Nietzsche (among other things) is that he not only
breaks from the tradition of defining 'art' as 'that painting on the
wall over there', but suggests the undefined, pre-intellectual,
immediate aesthetic is the point where 'creativity' bursts into the
world of form. In many ways, his contact between Apollonian and
Dionysian parallels Poincare's (and Einsteins, and Pirsig's, and
Peirce's) inquiry into the source of hypotheses.
[Mark]
As I see it in my simple way, A/D is said by Nietzsche, as an expression
of "energy" as described by the analogy of world view. What does N say
about their interconversion? DQ and sq are often depicted as distinct
concepts with DQ promoting sq.
[Arlo]
I am hesitant to use 'distinct' in many of its conventional
understandings. While we can think and talk about 'Apollonian' and
'Dionysian', I think its clear in Nietzsche that he's talking about a
very dialectical relationship, a Yin-Yang, where the two are
inextricably interactive or inter-dependent. Someone said to me once its
like watching a tennis match but keeping your eye on the ball, yes,
there are opposing players, but the game's progression is revealed as
the ball moves between them. Its a two-dimensional analogy, to be sure,
but it works on a simple level.
One of the concerns I've had with Pirsig's MOQ has been the idea that DQ
is (analogous to) a 'force', but 'sq' is more like a 'dead thing' left
in its wake. In Nietzsche's formulation, both the Apollonian 'tendency
towards form' and the Dionysian 'tendency towards dissolution' are
'forces' (in the analogous sense). It is a more direct Yin-Yang system,
if you will, and I think overall it works better than a force/dead-thing
analogy. I'm going to use the word 'value' slightly more constricted
than Pirsig, but in many ways Nietzsche maps Pirsig's MOQ by thinking of
Apollonian as tendency towards "value" (sq) and Dionysian as tendency
towards "freedom" (DQ).
In stating 'DQ promotes sq', I think what's missed is that 'sq re-paths
DQ'. What I mean is that sq isn't passively left behind, but these
patterns of value alter the course/direction of DQ by virtue of being
agenic. So you have this emergence of form that then alters the
trajectory of what forms appear in the future. In a long analogy,
consider that the iPod (as it is) is only possible subsequent to a
species having an opposing thumb. Our inventions, in other words, are
shaped by our restrictions, and these include the gamut of
inorganic/biological/social and intellectual composition.
Simply, the arrow points both ways. And this is why there is a 'tension'
between the two, there is a 'pull' from each side, but within each side
there is also the ability to move towards the other. The unformed must
not only resist form, but it must include the ability to be formed; and
the formed must not only resist being dissolved, but it must include the
ability to allow itself to be dissolved.
And, according to Nietzsche (and I think Pirsig), when these two
oppositional forces are in balance, is the point where 'art' as revealed
through human activity has its greatest emergence.
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
