ROGER ASKS " ART THOU SERIOUS?"
!Hey Amigos!
Platt:
Avid�s Fusion Theory of Art may be helpful to some. But, for me it's
far too complicated and, if I may say so, too scholarly.
ROGER:
Imagine the MOQ to newbies! Complex issues deserve penetrating analysis.
Dan:
I agree. If MOQ cannot be explained to small children then that explanation
is too complex. Very intriguing intellectually, however. Thank you for
sharing it with us, Avid.
ROGER:
Heck, David B.and I can't even agree on the simplest fundamentals of the MOQ,
let alone understand 'em. Now I was educated at California public schools,
so my credibility is suspect..... But David seems real smart!
Platt:
Art is, first of all, an experience. The intellectual patterns come
afterwards and are mostly irrelevant to the aesthetic experience.
Dan:
Beautifully put! :)
ROGER:
This reminds me of those posts that say how wrong it is to use language and
concepts to explain the unexplainable. They then of course never need to
post again. (In fact didn't Avid himself take this position recently?)
I am being facetious, and I know the Pirsig quotes saying something similar
IN HIS 800 PAGES OF PUBLISHED WORK!
The point is that there is a place for mystic awareness and artistic
enjoyment, and there is a place for metaphysical discussion and artistic
analysis. And once in a rare while they all meet together and have tea and
crumpets (and hashish if Rich throws the party!). I haven't talked to Rich
since he left, but I am guessing he may have faced this same dichotomy..."
why am I on a metaphysical medium when I want mystical experience?"
I believe the variety of intellectual and mystical is complementary.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
