| ROG TO MARCO WITH REFERENCES TO PLATT, BO AND DANILLA
Marco, Thanks so much. Your discussions are so challenging and worthwhile. I find I grow so much through our discussions. As I mentioned, I am writing some offshoots to the MOQ, part of which involves clarifying the levels. I do not agree with Pirsig everywhere, but do for the vast majority of distinctions. I am almost ready to attempt to spell out my thoughts on intellect, and find your input to be of awesome value. It both forces me to make my views more consistent, and to better learn Pirsig's, and to gather ideas from you and Danilla and others. Before going on to the cut'n'paste that never ends, I thought it would be good to clarify some things. I believe that the intellectual level refers to the systematic ART of building and testing simplified intellectual models that allow us to identify, learn, test, categorize, record and apply our experience. Through this methodology, higher quality ideas evolve. Pirsig carefully delineated the major weaknesses of Western intellectual practice. He discovered inherent defects in it. One major problem was that empiricism and rationalism cannot support itself. (As Platt frequently and rightly reminds us). Another is that it has excluded values. Another is that it has reduced art and quality down to a mere field of study . Another is that it cannot explain where hypotheses come from. Another is that it excluded concepts that could not be considered rational and defineable. Another is that it views subjects and objects as a fundamental division of reality. Another is that it elevates truth above quality. ote that most of these problems are related. I agree 100% with Pirsig on each and every one of these criticisms. In addition I have a few of my own. If anybody mischaracterizes me as an "uncritical rationalist," I will disagree critically. ;^) In Chapter 29 of ZMM Pirsig identifies that a critical (negative) juncture of Western thought was when Plato used the truth to establish the rightful place of the Good. He placed it at the top, but he did so (according to Pirsig) via the dialectic method. As such, the Sophist's "Arete" was reduced to the Good which was subordinated to truth and the dialectic methodology. Then Aristotle comes along and further demotes the Good to a minor metaphysical branch called ethics. Rhetoric and art become the teaching of mannerisms and forms...."5 spelling errors or 3 misplaced modifiers or..." Despite these weaknesses, Pirsig acknowledges that the scientific methodology is inherently dynamic as it requires conjecture and invites argument and tries to avoid dogma ( albeit not always successfully). The scientific method has led to an incredible self amplifying increase in knowledge. I believe the intellectual methodology can become even more successful with Pisigs corrections of these shared misconceptions in Aristotelian/Cartesian/Newtonian/Kantian thought. The MOQ is the expansion of intellect to correct its defects AND to RighT the defect of placing art under truth, by clarifying that truth is a subspecies of GOOD, not the other way around. As Pirsig says back in Ch 21 of ZMM, Quality "provides a rational basis for the unification of three areas of human experience which are now disunified. These three areas are Religion, Art and Science." He goes on to define art as "high-quality endeaver." The rest of ZMM and Lila and SODV continue this unification process. This is a roundabout way to say that ART or Quality or DQ or "high quality endeavor" is not a subspecies of intellectual patterns. To subordinate Art or Quality within the intellect is to repeat Aristotle's mistake. Certainly I agree that Pirsig unites Religion and Art and Science. I could add evolution and morality and reality to the list as well. It is, after all, a monistic metaphysics. But that has not been the discussion. The discussion has NOT been whether Einstein was an artist. I have always believed he was. The discussion has been pivoting on whether Piccasso was an intellectual. I have argued that he was not and that to put him here denigrates Picasso and Art. Now, to get back to the discussion: >ROG: >Intuition and creativity are metaphors for DQ in action.� They are not part >of the level of static patterns. MARCO: metaphors for DQ in action.... hmmm. Intuition and creativity are part of this world, so, as everything, they are both DQ and sQ. Pure DQ does not exist, just like pure sQ. Even the most intuitive and creative person, when in action, is partly slave of its static patterns. And the result of its creativity is necessarily made of patterns. ROG: As written by James and acknowledged by Pirsig, reality is "dynamic and flowing," and concepts are "static and discontinuous." This may relate to another disagreement between us, as indicated by your view that inorganic events are simplifications of experience. However, this will lead us way off topic, so I will let it go. The relevant point that I am making is that according to Pirsig "creativity, originality, inventiveness, intuition, imagination -- unstuckness in other words -- are completely outside [traditional science's] domain." The chapter in ZMM about gumption traps relates to his suggestions to get to "the front of the train of his own awareness , watching to see what's up the track and meeting it when it comes." Certainly, Pirsig is clarifying that this is an essential yet commonly ignored part of science, and his "gumptionology" deals with ways to develop rituals and static methodology that can foster this attentiveness. Your excerpts from SODV further re-inforce this point. >MARCO (previous post): I> can't imagine ART being less than intellectual. I can't imagine Picasso >being less than Einstein. One possibility is the fifth level, but I'm very negative about it. We don't need it. IMO the best view is to consider ART >and SCIENCE being two wonderful intellectual possibilities. If only we could >enlarge this poor vision of intellect......>> >ROG (cut'n paste): >I don't know that it is less.� >I think Platt and Pirsig think that it is >greater. .... >It does not seem to me intellectual >at all. >I think forcing it into this level demeans art.... >Art is the >creative, intuitive indefinable aspect of these that can drive painting and >drawing forward.� >Art is DQ. >I think he [Picasso] was an artistic painter/ drawer, not an artistic >intellectual. Or, perhaps he was JUST an ARTIST. MARCO: Painting and drawing are techniques, not exactly art. They are forms of language, they are social just like language. In facts, you can paint with a good technique, and without any artistic ... value.� Art is the ability to use those techniques in order to express something. Art, or, better, rt, is not DQ,� it's immediately after. DQ is the event, rt is the best form of "translation" of the event. What we commonly call "art" (painting, theatre, poetry... ) are part of the widest family of "rt", which includes every activity dedicated to search for excellence. By means of RiTual and cReaTivity (method and intuition). ROG: Agreed. You have said what I was trying to say earlier about initiative and creativity. You say it much, much better though! Very well said. MARCO: To say that Picasso was a painter is like to say that Pirsig is a writer. Or that Jesus was a preacher. Of course it's true, but there a lot missing. ROG: I think I made that clear. I said Piccasso was an ARTIST, and I said that to put art under intellect was demeaning. On the other hand, I agree 100% that science is a form of art. (as you say below) MARCO: I'm not exactly forcing art as intellectual. I mainly want to say that "rt" is the ability to "do well". To create or perform something aesthetically, functionally� and whatever else perfect. So "rt" can be intellectual or social..� even biologic and inorganic... if the result is a good translation of DQ into static patterns. ROG: Again very well said. MARCO: Your list [of Pirsigian references to 'intellectual level"] is very accurate. I would offer� that my impression after the reading of the book is that Pirsig talks about an intellect which is imperfect and still occupied in its social struggle. He has not good words for many aspects of western intellect (for example when he talks of objectivity). At the end his MOQ (that is, you recognize it, intellectual) is the attempt to begin a new phase� in the intellectual evolution. An intellect which is able also to lift its look above. Not only engaged in its social struggle, but also engaged in the construction of something new. I've read his suggestion of arts being the "new code" as the trial to reconcile art and intellect on a new field, in which your list could represent one of the bases. ROG: Again I agree 100%. MARCO (previous post): [...] the Picasso example I offered challenges you to find how is it possible that my intellect is influenced by art. Both in your and Bo's assumptions, Picasso is a Platypus. ROG: No it isn't, I spoke of the necessary attentiveness to creativity and intuition. You seemed to dismiss my suggestion as being "made of patterns." I agree with you on ritual and creativity. We do not have a disagreement here, and I do not have a platypus. Bo might, but if so, the little rascal is probably freezing its little Australian butt off this time of year. PIRSIG: "The block at the top contains such static intellectual patterns as theology, science, philosophy, mathematics". MARCO: Even theology is intellectual, IMO a form of intellect even less refined than science. Please, Roger, add this one to your list :-). He does not mention art, but this only the starting point. ROG: The systematic study of religion is an intellectual pattern. No argument. (This "systematic study" angle may be able to lead us to some future consensus too....???) PIRSIG: "... what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The Conceptually Unknown." Then the two come together. I would guess that the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in physics because it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned with what is intellectually meaningful. That also might be why Bohr never mentioned it. However I think that this avoidance of The Conceptually Unknown should be revised. It is like saying that the number zero is unacceptable to mathematics because there's nothing there. Mathematics has done very well with the number "zero" despite that fact. The Conceptually Unknown, it seems to me is a workable intellectual category for the description of nature and it ought to be worked more. As a starting axiom I would say, "Things which are intellectually meaningless can nevertheless have value." I don't know of an artist who would disagree with that". MARCO: Science can't give intellectual value (meaning) to The Conceptually Unknown. BUT the MOQ introduces the concept of "DQ" (equivalent to The Conceptually Unknown), as a new INTELLECTUAL category. I repeat, INTELLECTUAL. ROG: And I repeat that I already explained that the METAPHYSICS of Quality (and subsequently the static levels and the CONCEPT of DQ) was an intellectual pattern. We have no argument, I repeat, NO ARGUMENT. (hee hee) PIRSIG: "What science might not agree on is that this Conceptually unknown is aesthetic. But if the Conceptually Unknown were not aesthetic why should the scientific community be so attracted to it? If you think about it you will see that science would lose all meaning without this attraction to the unknown. A good word for the attraction is "curiosity." Without this curiosity there would never have been any science. try to imagine a scientist who has no curiosity whatsoever and estimate what his output will be. This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of connection between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to the arts is that science explore the Conceptually Unknown in order to develop a theory that will cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown. The arts explore the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns such as music, literature, painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced them. This description, I think, is the rational connection between science and the arts". MARCO: There's a� RATIONAL connection between science and arts! ROG: I agree there is a rational connection between ART and science! However, we must not denigrate Art by lowering it to a subclass of the intellectual level (meaning by placing it within the level like Aristotle). I also said that there was an ART to intellectual process (though I admit I did not say this well...I will from this point on) Thanks for the insight and clarifications. MARCO: It's the conceptually unknown, that is intellectual and aesthetic. So that it can contain� both science and arts into a new intellectual/aesthetic frame. ROG: Let's be careful here. The conceptually unkown is DQ. There can be benefits in referencing DQ in science and metaphysics, but necessary in this reference is that it is indeed conceptually unknowable. It is legitimate in science and math and metaphysics to reference the concept of the nonconceptual. Just as it is rational to conceive of irrational numbers, and logical to sudy illogical statements. I would not agree that the conceptually unknown (DQ) is intellectual, but I would agree that it is aesthetic. I believe the CONCEPT of the nonconceptual (DQ) is intellectual, but that is a very different thing. PIRSIG: "... one of the reasons I have spent so much time in this paper describing the personal relationship of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in the development of quantum theory is that although the world views science as a sort of plodding, logical methodical advancement of knowledge, what I saw here were two artists in the throes of creative discovery". MARCO: Heisenberg and Bohr were ARTISTS!!! Their scientific "method" is the technique, just like drawing is the technique of Picasso, writing is the technique of Pirsig, preaching is the technique of Jesus. Science as a logical methodical advancement of knowledge is just an imperfect "view". ROG: I said science was artistic and aesthetic about a month ago. The argument is not over whether they are artists, it is whether Picasso was an intellectual. I am still keeping an open mind on the issue. PIRSIG: "They were at the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something out of that unknown into a static form that would be of value to everyone". MARCO: Do you remember my definition of intellect: take a small piece of DQ and put it in a coded and socially shareable form. This is both ART and SCIENCE! ROG: Yes. This is the crux of our disagreement. I mentioned that "take a small piece of DQ and put it in a coded and socially shareable form" was a decent definition of a meme. Of course memes are not necessarily intellectual. I think that your definition is rampant with non-intellectual processes. According to your definition, the Hippy movement, laws, commandments, dancing, cries of beasts, and even simple childish requests for cookies are intellectual patterns. IMO you need to differentiate intellectual patterns from other social patterns and from other types of Art. I did so via the methodology. Your point that "This is both ART and SCIENCE!" is also interesting, and though I agree that they both CAN share these characteristics, I suspect that this may be overly restrictive to Art. For example, must ART be social and shared? At first I thought so, but now I wonder. What do you think, Marco, must Motorcycle Maintenance be "coded and socially shareable"? In the end, I believe this definition of intellect degrades both intellect and art. In other places, I think you have defined it better. The rest of this post deals with whether science is artistic. We both agree it is, and so have no argument. PIRSIG: "As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the largest sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the same human purpose". MARCO: Art and science are sharing THE SAME HUMAN PURPOSE !!! ROG: Yes, this was the major focus of ZMM.... to unite Religion, Art and Science. MARCO (previous post): My attempt is to glimpse a possible development of intellect out of the trap of scientific method. In order to complete it: I'm not the enemy of intellect [...], I'm just arguing that what you are calling intellect is only the first step of something that has unexploited possibilities. ROG: That's why I referenced the importance of intuition and creativity and the solutions that the MOQ offers to the scientific process. Certainly this exchange hs helped me to improve my vision though. Greatly! >ROGER: >Don't try forcing art into science though.� I suspect you will denigrate >art. MARCO: But I'm not forcing art INTO science. I want that art and science can walk together. Their complementary, not exclusive. ROG: My mistake, please let me clarify.....it appears you are trying to force art into the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL by defining both as "take a small piece of DQ and put it in a coded and socially shareable form. This is both ART and SCIENCE!" This is the same mistake Pirsig attributed to the Greeks. In summary, I find this particular definition of the intellectual level as overly broad, and demeaning to both the intellectual level and to Art. However, the discussion has greatly improved my understanding and led to substantial refinements of my views. How about you? Sorry for the length. My next post summarizes the issues down to what I see as the basics. (Funny how I tell you this at the end, huh?) Rog |
- Re: MD Intellect and Art (Long Version) RISKYBIZ9
- Re: MD Intellect and Art (Long Version) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
