Hi Dan, It's been a busy weekend, getting the place cleaned up for guests for Sarah's wedding.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > > > > Jc: The object of artistic endeavor, can be anything from flower > > -arranging to metaphysics, of course. But the endeavor of artistry is > > different than other endeavors, including approaching things > > intellectually. But to make the useful distinction clearer, intellect > > can be done artfully but art can't really be done intellectually, unless > > you want to bend the definition of intellectually to fit your own private > > space - but isn''t doing so (estoricism) counter-productive? > > Dan: > I suggest you endeavor to artfully write a book without doing it > intellectually and then get back with me on this. > > Jc: writing without intellect is certainly doable. I don't think it would be valuable but anti-intellectualism is definitely a movement with a strong following but I despise it all and would rather not discuss it. As for me writing anything, artfully or otherwise... I don't know. I can't give it much thought right now. >> Dan: >> Craftsmanship can be an artistic endeavor. >> > > Jc: On a relative scale, art is dynamic and craftsmanship is static. If > you approach your craft, too dynamically, you'll end up with something that > doesn't function. Craftsmanship can be done artfully, like intellect, but > it's not the same thing. Dan: > So you're saying the title to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintenance is wrong too? > > Jc: No, because looking at mechanics artfully, is a good thing to do, a freeing exercize. But erasing the distinction between art and mechanics completely would be low-quality because there is a different attitude we bring to mechanical problems. If you thought the carbs would look better on the exhaust manifold, for instance, because of an artistic urge for aesthetic quality ... Maybe I'm looking at it wrongly. This is the way "I" do things and my concepts are based upon my experience. Or do you think the MoQ obviates individuals? It seems we may have wrangled over this in the past, but I'm not sure I remember our conclusion. > > > > > > > >> > John: > >> > Is following a blueprint the same as creating a blueprint? > >> > >> Dan: > >> Both can be artistic endeavors. > >> > >> > John: > >> > Is a > >> > chinese craftsman copying the Mona Lisa, brush stroke for brush > stroke, > >> > himself as artistic as Leonardo DaVinci? I don't think so. > >> > >> Dan: > >> If I copy Hemingway word for word, am I the artist that Hemingway was? > >> Of course not. > >> > >> > > Jc: what we call craftsmanship, is not somebody reading a blueprint or > > following written instructions - but they are following a pre-determined > > pattern for a long time so that its internalized. Their craft is defined > > by their perfect lines with everything fitting so its exactly like the > > things made before it and the things made after it. Machines are capable > > of craft, but only humans do real art. > > Dan: > I don't think machines are capable of craftsMANship. If there is no > art or craftsmanship to reading blueprints or following instructions, > you seem to be implying anyone can do it. I disagree. Like anything > else, there is a certain skill set involved, acquired over time, and > expanded upon with experience. > > Jc: What I mean is, that craftsmanship is relatively static - it comes from lots of repetitious practice and its constrained to defined outlines and specifications. Perfect craftsmanship implies an absence of the human - a robotic perfection almost, that is different in my experience, than art which is freed from all that external restraint, and comes from a vision within. And you can't say my reality, isn't the real reality because that would break the rules of pragmatism AND the MoQ. > > >> > John: >> > I think Art is >> > more tied to DQ and craftsmanship to SQ. >> >> Dan: >> I think anything done with great peace of mind and caring is artistry. >> >> > Jc: Sure, I've heard you can take a crap, artfully. But here I'm going to > attack that definition of "art". Even tho it's widely in use. > > I'm not talking about subjective experiences of artful endeavor the > ubiquitous self-declared genius of the 20th century. I'm not talking about > objective artistry as in something that only resides in certain things like > paintings or sculptures. I'm talking about art as in meaningful and > revolutionary. I'm talking about art as the closest we can get to DQ. Zen > isn't so much about practice, as breaking practice and art is thinking > outside the box. Craftsmanship is making a perfect box. Dan: > You seem to be going out of your way here to make some sort of point > but I'm not sure what it is. You are throwing around "DQ" like it's > some sort of goal or object of desire. I'll have to respectfully > disagree and leave it like that. > > Jc: Ok, fine. But DQ, I think of in the aspect of "the dynamic". Change fore the better, is a goal - an object-of-desire. > Jc: Then why does MD have a hard time saying that the 4th should be > helping the 3rd, rather than "competing with it"? You don't compete with > your foundational support, you build it. Dan: > I haven't talked to MD so I'm not sure how to answer you here. Lila > specially states the four levels are often in opposition. Is that what > you mean? > > Jc: Yes, that is what I mean. I feel its been over-construed to indicate inherent conflict - especially between the 4th and the 3rd. This seems very wrong to me because properly, in a good world, 4th helps come up with new social patterns and when you consider artistic trends as 4th level, as I do, this is obviously true. > > >> Dan: > >> I don't think I am conflating anything. It is the MOQ that states that > >> the levels are often in opposition. I am pretty sure I already offered > >> a quote to back up that assertion so I take it you believe it is the > >> MOQ that conflates the old against the new. > >> > >> > > Jc: yes, I reckon I do. I see a specific problem with the idea and I > > don't often argue with the author, but I guess I am now. I agree his > words > > made sense at the time they were written, in the context of a story. But > > Conflict, is not a story you want to continue into the future, ad > > infinitum. The story of evolution does not point to one species, > standing > > on a dead earth with everything else killed because competition is the > goal > > of evolution. These ideas are all outmoded. > > Dan: > So you're saying we as human beings have evolved so much during the > last twenty some years that we are now at harmony not only with our > fellow people but with all of nature. Jc: No. I am saying that all those conflicts you mention are social in origin and aspect. Nobody argues over the relevance of Kant, there. But they do fight for wealth and celebrity and that their group, which favors Ecology, beats the industrial social pattern which values ROI. I have a heard time of even imagining the concept of "competition" between the levels. Competition is a human term that doesn't work well in nature. Lions don't compete with gazelles and gazelles aren't in competition when they're running from a lion. They are just running. Second, society promotes and supports intellectual patterns, all the time. In the form of universities and art museums and grants and love. Pirsig had a hard time early on, with society but later on, he found fame and fortune etc. So is it right to say that the nature of relationship between social pattern and intellectual, competitive or conflicted? I disagree with the MoQ, as understood by many. Fortunately I don't believe in a MoQ of fixed or static nature. But the open-ness to Value, leaves room for growth and improvement. Dan: > There is no longer any conflict > going on... indeed, conflict is outdated, Pirsig and Darwin be damned. > I beg to differ. > > Jc: Sure there's conflict. Always has been. Social conflict. The simplest society is the web of patterns and relations that starts with just two. Until two, you can't have a society. This is why I wonder if SOM isn't inextricably connected to social interests - the powers that be which wish to keep the status quo - subjects and objects as metaphysical fundaments yields absolute control. If so, its not enough for the MoQ community to attack SOM intellectually. SEE? I do have a point here. The MoQ community also has to act socially. That's my perspective anyway. >> >> Dan: >> I think that is short sighted. Children need to be under control >> because they don't yet understand the dangers in the world. As >> parents, we compete with biological urges of our children that we know >> are not in their best interest. It happens all the time. >> >> > > Jc: I just can't buy they conflation of compete and control. It sounds > like you'd have to use Freud to make your point, or some subtle > psychological thing but I never competed with my kids biological urges. I > directed them appropriately but all biological urges are rooted in real > needs. They aren't to be repressed, or fought, or competed with. They are > to be directed and guided as socially useful. That's been my human > experience and if you've had a different, then I'm sorry. Dan: > Apology accepted. > > Jc: Heh. Sorry is an ambiguous term with the possible meaning of regret for your unfortunate circumstance. > > > >>> Dan: > >>> To be in opposition to something does not imply war. Instead, look at > >>> the higher levels as seeking to free the lower ones. > >>> > >>> > >> Jc: I definitely see it as "freeing" but I can't see freeing as > >> opposition. > > > > Dan: > > > >> We all have a comfort level where we tend to settle into. Unless > >> something which opposes that comfort comes along and shakes us out of > >> our complacency, we stagnate. > >> > >> > > Jc: Anthropomorphising a particular psychological pattern onto all the > > levels and eternal conflict with society does not seem an appropriate > > move, imho. Let's just there is a tendency for all levels, to value > > staticity. I agree. Much of that time, that's fine. But when a certain > > point is reached, where life demands a change, those who attach TOO much > > value to staticity, can't change without some harsh external force. But > > not everybody is like that. Buddhists, for instance, learn to shun > > attachment. :) > > Dan: > Isn't that what I just said? > Jc: Sure! You think every sentence I write is disagreement? I guess I should have included the communicative emoticon for nodding my head up and down. oops! :) > Jc: I've come to believe that Robert Pirsig has greatly penetrated the > academic and commercial world. Even tho he is very little understood. > And the problems of SOM, are much bigger than merely intellectual. SOM is > the quintessential social- operating system, par excellence, at least in a > militaristic, conflict-paradigm. Dan: > Wait a minute... I thought you said conflict was outmoded? > > Jc: Theoretically, it is. The MoQ should reduce conflict because categories are not objective/static. But alas, here we are. Conflict is greater than ever before it seems, between people and nations, between people and their government. but its almost like being conflictual is "being in the camp of the enemy". All conflict is SOM at root, for it takes a certain reification of self and other, for there to be conflict in the first place. > > > > Which is a very good reason, to leave that paradigm behind. > > Dan: > Subject and object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual quality > patterns. > > Jc: Ah, well now at least I know where Bo gets it. Didn't you just say the 4th level is SOM? Or no, you're saying that SOM is a subset of the 4th level. Gotcha. Maybe, but it's a lower quality collection of intellectual quality patterns. It reifies too much, and the wrong things. Dan: Curious. You accept the analogy but reject its meaning. Jc: Or more pragmatically, I give the analogy a meaning that meshes with experience. Mine. > > Jc: I don't think of experience as "just the moment". I think of it in > Roycean terms of a past, a present and a future, all cognized and > harmonized. I think of DQ as anything BUT the past, and thus I do > distinctify between DQ and experience. > >>> Dan: >>> Intellectual paradigms of society does not correspond to social patterns. >>> >>> >> Jc: Then they should try harder. The goal of all intellectual analysis > is >> conformity with the object of its attention. > > Dan: >> That depends. If a person is starving to death, then the goal of >> intellectual analysis is to find something to eat, conformity be >> damned. >> >> > Jc: If a person is starving, the object of attention is food and thus the > goal of intellectual analysis. Dan: Really! Are you going to intellectually analyze the food? Or eat it? Jc: If it's unfamiliar I'm going to scrutinize it with all my analytical ability. If it's in a fritos bag, I'd probably just scarf. But I'll think about where I'm getting more, while I'm chewing. and how to get out of this situation. I won't be treasuring or focusing on the moment. I know Buddhism advocates quieting the monkey mind, but I let mine chatter. Keeps me entertained. >> Dan: >> I think a metaphysics is a collection of intellectual quality >> patterns. Social patterns arise out of biological patterns. >> >> > Jc: I thought social patterns were discrete, in your view? When a new > metaphysics is grasped and adopted by a group of people, a new society is > born. I don't know if that is MoQ correct, but it is obvious to any > thinking person. Dan: I think you might want to look up the term 'metaphysics' and then make an effort at another reply here. Jc: no... I don't need to look it up, I've done that before. I should restate my former postulate tho: When a new metaphysical outlook is adopted, society is changed. > >>> Dan: >>> The MOQ states that experience and Dynamic Quality are synonymous. >>> >> >> >> Jc: Then the MoQ is wrong. Experience is generated by Dynamic Quality, >> but that doesn't make them synonomous. Any more than a father is >> synonomous with his child or electricity with a dynamo. A certain >> correlation exists, sure. But equality? No way. > > Dan: > >> Static quality arises from experience. Remember, the MOQ begins with >> experience. To say experience is generated by something is to go >> against that, and we are no longer talking about the MOQ. >> >> I could offer myriad quotes to back this up, but I have a feeling it >> wouldn't do any good. Would it? >> >> > Jc: No, not really. I recall myself the quote and I agree with your > reading. I guess my point is "begins with" is certainly not synonymous > with "is synonymous with" and thus Pirsig is making my point. But do you > really think asking what generates experience is wrong? It seems a good > question to me. Dan: How is asking what generates experience a good question when the MOQ starts with experience? Jc: Because asking what generates the MOQ, is also a good question. Dan: That would imply something that comes before experience. Anyway, I get the distinct impression that we are not talking about the MOQ here. Are we? Jc: We are certainly talking about it in different terms, but isn't that to be expected? >> Dan: >> But that is what we as human beings do... we define boundaries. The >> temporal nature of reality has nothing to do with that. >> >> > Jc: Yes! It does. Because the boundaries of the past are not necessarily > the boundaries of the future. On a related note, I don't believe the MoQ > should be only static. Dan: Okay. What should it be then? Dynamic, as well. Growing, evolving, living. Thanks Dan, John 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
