Hello Robert, On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Robert Warlov <[email protected]> wrote: > The answer is suggested in the book: 'Hitchickers guide to the galaxy'. See > the commentary that ends in the words: "... How shall we eat? Why do we > eat? and where shall we have lunch?" > > The answer to the question of what evolves from intellect, the next form > inhabited by Quality is art itself.
Dan: I would say intellect informs art. > > Because biology reaches its limited form, it takes a radical step, finding > "Betterness" in repeating the process the protozoa 'discovered' in > subsuming itself to membership in a metazoan society. Dan: I would say that when we talk about the MOQ, social patterns are not to be seen as a collection of biological patterns. To do so is to create confusion. > > Society or community undertakes activities whose driver is "betterness" > too. Certain aspects of biological quality are discovered to be > antithetical to social quality. Order seems to produce a stronger society. > Hence disorder must be mitigated by law. Dan: Social patterns make use of biological patterns the same way biological patterns make use of inorganic patterns. > > If it's easy to see how these are related. It's harder to see the same > process applied to 'Intellect'. > > My generation was not seeking to subvert 'Intellect' but to illuminate it's > excesses - that which threatened 'disorder' or 'Decay'. > > As intellect informs society so Art must inform intellect to midigate it's > destructive formations. Dan: I think this is not quite correct. The moral codes actively oppose one another. Intellectual patterns do not seek to inform social patterns, rather they oppose them. Remember the parties Phaedrus attended and how all the intellectuals were rebelling against 'The Man'? Similarly, the code of art would not inform intellect so much as it would seek to usurp it. I don't see that artists are interested in the mundane world. They seek to create something new, not to imitate... sort of like the difference between philosophy and philosophology. > > Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living things and living things are valuable. Dan: I think that depends upon the context. Atomic bombs might conceivably be used to either destroy or steer away an asteroid threatening the earth. In that case, they would be valuable for living things. > > If Quality preceeds experience, there can be no experience of Quality and > if Quality is the arbiter of experience, there is no sensible experience > without it. Dan: Again, I would say it depends on which context you are using the term 'quality' here. In the MOQ, Quality and experience are synonymous. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
