[JC] I would say intellect evolved through an artform. [Dan] I'll have to think about this a little more. It doesn't sound right, somehow, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why that is.
[Arlo] I think the language is imprecise. Perhaps "intellect evolved AS an artform" (understanding that "art" is a "high quality endeavor"), and it has been the divorcing of 'art' and 'intellect' that led to the crisis in ZMM. In other words, intellect itself is an artform, no more and no less than abstract painting or sculpture. [JC] But both art and intellect are best when they inform each other - ideas that are beautiful and works that are true. [Arlo] Here you're using these terms to restate the romantic/classic distinction directly (art=beautiful, intellect=true). I think we should be careful here when we're using these terms in the 'problem space' (art as being divorced from reason), and when we're using them in the 'solution space' (art has high-quality endeavor that applies to reason, painting, all forms of human activity). Perhaps better to say, "intellect is best when done artfully"? But that's a sort of tautology, isn't it? Or maybe "intellect is best when it is not artificially divorced from notions of aesthetics and beauty"? "Inform each other" seems, to me, to normalize a distinction that isn't there, the very distinction Pirsig argued was inherently artificial. 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
