Arlo, > [Arlo] > Yeah, this is a horribly confused thing to say for someone who claims to "I > don't misunderstand Pirsig".
Jc: I believe I understand Pirsig. I felt like I got him, the first time I read him, and subsequent readings just improved the relationship. There are places where I don't agree. I've enumerated them, so why do you say I claim to misunderstand Pirsig? Surely I've made it perfectly clear that I disagree with Pirsig in specific areas. I don't mind somebody arguing against my position, but to repeatedly argue that "that's Pirsig's position is so completely irrational and asinine that I don't know what to think. Probably the fault is mine. I've been lax lately, in responding promptly - what with a wedding going off in 5 days and the world cup to watch, I haven't gotten around to setting you straight. > > "Where is art?" Besides in the title of his first book? In Chapter 8 (ZMM), > Pirsig likens "the art of motorcycle maintenance" to "the art of > rationality". Here even a casual reader should be able to discern the role > of "art", something Pirsig makes explicit later on. "Art is high-quality > endeavor. That is all that really needs to be said. Or, if something more > high-sounding is demanded: Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of > man." > > Granger captures the implication here by noticing, "Art is thus a part of > our most elementary and indigenous mode of being in the world." (John Dewey, > Robert Pirsig, and the Art of Living) > > In LILA, Pirsig clarifies even further the nature of "art" within his MOQ. > "In a subject-object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart, morals > being concerned with the subject quality and art with object quality. But in > the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same." > To make his position ultimately clear, he states, "there's a fourth Dynamic > morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" > or something like that..." > > "Where is art?" Art is Quality revealed in the works of man. > > And which works? Just painting, sculpting, dancing? No. ALL works. Art is > high quality endeavor in philosophy. Art is high quality endeavor in > motorcycle repair. Art is high quality endeavor in culinary practice. Art is > high quality endeavor in composition. In assembling rotisseries. In > sculpting images from clay. > > And the goal? As Granger explains it, "In learning to conduct more of > everyday experience in an artful manner, we increase our ability to liberate > and expand the potential meanings of things." > > Included on Ant's DVD is a 2010 interview with Pirsig, which Ant has titled > "The MOQ and Art". Here, Pirsig clarifies (again) his position on art. "“I > agree with Patrick Dourly that this corresponds to Gengrich’s(?) notion of > "art as mastery". He does not think of art as an object (I think that was > his first sentence) and neither does Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintenance or my ideas of the Metaphysics of Quality. Art is endeavor." > > I'm just going to encourage you to get this DVD, so I won't copy more than > this one paragraph, which I think reflects precisely what Pirsig has already > elaborated on in his earlier works. > > "Oh, art as placed in the levels of evolution. Well, if you read the > Metaphysics of Quality, you know there are four levels of evolution: the > Inorganic, the Biological, the Social, and the Intellectual. And art is a > mixture of all of those with Dynamic Quality if it’s really art – not – I > say mixture - I don’t say it’s completely Dynamic Quality. Finger painting > by a two year old is Dynamic. But it’s a mixture of somebody who knows how > to satisfy the art traditions of history but at the same time has a > direction that he wants to go on his own to some extent, so he’s not a > complete copy-cat and he’s not a complete wild-man – he’s in between. And, > the amount of Dynamic Quality should not be overcome by Intellectual > Quality, by these static patterns. At the same time, the static patterns or > the intellect- the Dynamic Quality should not overcome your static patterns > to a point where it’s meaningless to a person who writes." > > Which itself is simply an elaboration of this statement in ZMM: "...the art > of the work is just as dependent upon your own mind and spirit as it is upon > the material of the machine." > > [DMB] > And there are many pieces of evidence showing that art is not to be confused > with the fine arts, as Arlo so patiently and fruitlessly tried to show you. > > [Arlo] > My money is on this confusion persisting. > I guarantee it. And that's not a bad thing. our discussion is intellectual in scope (words are ) from the outset, talking about "art" in any rigourous way is virtually impossible. But the effort is righteous and the cause is good. So I say we continue... Jc 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
