From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 19:40:08 GMT
Hi Platt, Rick, and all,
>
>> STEVE:
>>> I think it was Steve Martin who said something like "Talking about art
> is
>>> like dancing about poetry."
>>
>> Nice. Thanks for the quote.
>
> RICK
> You're either thinking of John Lennon who said "Writing about music is like
> talking about fucking" or Elvis Costello who said "Writing about music is
> like dancing about architechture." In both cases, they were talking about
> the critics. Not the general idea of discussing art.
Steve:
I think the quote still applies. In talking about art, the art is always
missing. It is impossible to say why something is good though talking about
art can help establish prior experience that may contribute to a quality
experience of art in the future. I didn't mean to imply that talking about
art is a bad idea, it just has it limitations.
>
> PLATT
>> Pirsig doesn't say as much about the arts as he might have. The reason
>> may be contained in the following passage from Lila, Chap. 13:
>>
>> "Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
>> intellectual order over the -social order-democracy, trial by jury,
> freedom
>> of speech, freedom of the press. Finally 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, but art is usually thought of as such a frill
>> that that title undercuts its importance."
>>
>> There's a hint here that art might be an unrealized fifth level, an idea
> I've
>> argued for in the past.
>
> RICK
> I always thought the "Code of Art" was the existing moral code of Dynamic
> over static rather than the suggestion of a new level. But you could be
> right.
I have been thinking of dynamic morality in the sense of the usual usage of
the word "morality"--not as types of patterns but as a code of conduct.
The MOQ distinguishes two categories of morals to help us understand their
purpose. AsI understand what Pirsig is saying, some of our morality exists
to control biological patterns, which is the social-biological moral code.
Some morals exist to free the intellect from society which make up the
social-intellectual code.
Dynamic morality is a moral code like these (not a static level), but it is
the code that can't be codified. I see Dynamic morality as what the MOQ
offers us in place of the static absolute right and wrong that people have
unsuccessfully tried to uncover for so long. Since static patterns change
over time, there are no moral absolutes or fixed standards for behavior that
are universally best for all time. "Best" is a moving target and so the
morality that we must follow if we hope to achieve it is dynamic.
To live according to dynamic morality is to follow DQ or to follow the Tao.
"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" (says the Tao Te Ching).
The morality that can be codified is not the eternal morality. The Tao is
often translated as "the way." Jesus is also said to be the Way. The great
spiritual teachers have taught let go of static patterns. Then what?
Follow dynamic morality. Allow yourself to be lived by DQ, the Tao, God,
etc.
At any rate, I don't think it would make any sense to think of dynamic
morality as a static level, but Platt may still be on to something to
suggest that the experience of art that we have such a hard time classifying
within the four static levels may be part of a static level above the
intellectual.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 19:41:06 GMT