Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Not at all. Are you suggesting that everyone should get A's for their art? > > [Arlo] > I'm saying that exposure to more art is a good thing. Too many these > days are convinced "art" is what experts and afficianados tell them > it is. Jeez, what are we even arguing about here??? All I said was > that it was nice to be somewhere where "art" was brought out of the > museums and into the daily activity of people. Art doesn't just > belong in a museum, or in a recital hall, or on a stage in a > well-sealed auditorium. It is the living, breathing Dynamism of life. > And we need more of that, not less.
I'm all for exposure to good art. But most of what passes for art these days is junk. > Let me ask a pointed question. You are so adamant about social level > control of the biological level, but you seem to want NO intellectual > control of the social level. You use the MOQ to justify neo-Victorian > restrictions to any biological activity you deem vulgar, but at the > same time demand that intellectual control of the social level is immoral. Even Pirsig says it's immoral because modern intellect based on SOM has no provision for morals. > If we need to keep the door open to Dynamic Quality on the social > level, and hence bar intellect from its rightful place of dominance > over it. Why does this same thing not apply to society and biology? > Why is "DQ" so important on the social level but meaningless on the > biological level? > > In other words, if intellect controlling society is "immoral" because > it shuts the door to DQ, why does this also not make social control > of biological quality also "immoral"? Sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to think intellect is necessary for responses to DQ? Is that what you're saying? > Or, if it is so moral for society to dominate biology, because of the > MOQ hierarchy, then I'd say its also so moral for intellect to > dominate society. Or do you want to have it both ways? Absolute > social control over biology, but no intellectual control whatsover > over society? Why is one level "supposed" to be dominant over its > predecessor, but the other not? Because, to repeat, modern intellect has no place for morals. > If it went right, I'd suspect we'd have more artists and > philosophers, and that these pursuits would be the most meaningful > and rewarded activities in our society. Now that I agree with. Not more "American Idol" types who think they are artists but good artists, disciplined by hard work not to mention possessing talent and inspired to capture DQ, i.e., spirit. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
