Robert, On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, ... > 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. > > Robert: Society is a collection of biological patterns called people. I'm > afraid I didn't express myself well. I meant to point out the nexus of > biological/social as the grouping of individuals. That's not a social > pattern. That's society itself.
Dan: > > ... Certain aspects of biological quality are antithetical to social quality. > Order produces 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. > > Robert: Agreed. Persig used the stronger term: 'exploits'. > > . .. 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. > > Robert: But not in the biginning. First the benifits that accrue from group > activity become apparent, then social needs begin to 'trump' individual ones; > the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few... all that stuff. Dan: I get the impression that you either haven't read Lila or else its been a while. Am I correct? >Dan: > Intellectual patterns do not seek to inform social patterns, rather they > oppose them. > > Robert: Again, not initially. When the group makes a law to govern individual > behavior, that's society informing biology. Dan: I think by mixing terms we are sewing confusion. You seem to be using a group of individuals to denote social patterns. As long as we use terms out of context, there can be no agreement. > Dan: > Remember the parties Phaedrus attended and how all the intellectuals were > rebelling against 'The Man'? > > Robert: I don't have the book anymore and it was a very long time since I > read it but I recall a somewhat ecclectic group there. Robert's motorcycle > companions, his son, some from the university and one who was refered to > simply as an artist. Dan: Well, ZMM is available online as a PDF. Just Google it. It is useful to have a copy on hand. Have you read Lila? If not, you can get a copy for just a few dollars. >Dan: > 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. > > Robert: . It was more the university students speaking that way. The > 'System', ( i.e. Reason / SOM ) had become evil- 'rotten to the core'. > > Second: You use the term 'code of art'. Art has no code. Artist's approach > thier 'work', oddly enough the way real scientists do. Dan: I'm not a scientist but I would think they require certain parameters to verify the work they do... falsifiability, repeatability, peer review, etc. They can't just make stuff up and still be regarded as scientists. Robert: > They're driven by the same curiousity and open to new experiences. Science > misses much because thier 'phonomona' must fit certian critiria, else, it's > disqualified. Artist don't have that problem. The world is not 'mundane' to > artists- not real ones, and they don't 'seek to create something new' but are > open to new experiences which, if succesful, finds resonance through them. Dan: If artists aren't creating something new, then they are simply repeating what others have done. Forgery, plagiarism, copyright infringement... all these things cannot be considered art, no matter how impressive they seem. I'm a writer. In order to write well, I must follow certain rules, otherwise it is gibberish, yet at the same time I must use those rules to create something new. Whatever medium an artist uses requires the same thing, be it painting, dancing, photography, pottery, etc. >Robert: > 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. > > Robert: Agreed, but a science cleaved from 'moral responsibility' for what it > unleashes upon the world may be a harbinger of global suicide. Dan: Like anything else, science can be used for good or ill. >Robert: > I believe the MOQ offers a way to sainity, but only if Intellect/SOM/Science > is answerable to someone. Dan: Intellect is not SOM nor it it science, if that's what you mean. Answerable to someone? Who? Not at all sure what you're getting at. If an idea is a good idea, it takes root and grows. >Robert: > 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: The MOQ starts with experience. > 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. > > Robert: What I mean is that one cannot define a thing that exists outside > experience, and if Quility is the arbitor of experience, it is not found > amongst the materials of experience. Walt Whitman in his poem 'Leaves of > Grass' said; '... the unseen is proved by the seen.' I don't disagree with > this. Dan: I'm alone in my house. When I walk out of my living room/office and into the kitchen to fix a spot of tea, does my living room cease to exist? > > Thanks Dan! You're welcome, Robert. Thank you too. 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
