From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 00:03:07 GMT
Hi Platt,
I accept what you say.
Have been thinking about musical excellence in terms of SQ-SQ tension, but in
that was in other disjointed threads and may be included in a new essay? ;)
All the best,
Mark
In a message dated 2/7/04 3:54:52 PM GMT Standard Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > Hello Platt,
> > I have been giving some thought to your recent posts. I can understand
> that
> > exceptional Quality will receive almost Universal appeal. Let us consider
> > that for a moment: The very best in art receives Universal recognition.
> Why
> > should there be such agreement? Why are the top three on your quoted list
> > so good? This fascinates me. However, as you suggest, 'What's more, there
> > are degrees of excellence.' We may disagree about those lower down on the
> > list - you have expressed variations between your values and those of the
> > author of the list - but those top three?
>
> My guess is that the sense of value that each of us is born with responds
> universally to the top three for the same reason humans respond
> universally to the beauty of a sunset. Those artists were somehow capable
> of understanding and reflecting our very souls. How they reached that
> understanding while the rest of us remain largely in the dark is as much a
> mystery as existence itself.
>
> > A thought comes to me Platt: 'Whenever exceptional excellence in art
> > evolves, does it evolve in isolation?' I am thinking about Michelangelo
> and
> > Leonardo. They knew each other, and there was a degree of friction between
> > them, with Leonardo expressing sculpture as an inferior art to that of
> > painting. Is this a recurring theme?
>
> I don't think so. Most great art is developed by artists in isolation. The
> exceptional excellence of those unknown artists who painted the animals on
> the walls of the caves of Lascaux is a case in point.
>
> > But to return to your central point regarding degrees of excellence. It is
> > there, i think i can agree. But what does this say about me? Do i have to
> > be able to become coherent with art in order to be able to value it?
>
> Not at all. You can value art as pure experience and value it according to
> your own taste or sentiment. David Hume distinguished between personal
> sentiment and educated judgment. "All sentiment is right," he wrote,
> because "no sentiment represents what really is in the object." Sentiment
> is a matter of perception. When it comes to sentiment we may not argue
> with the admirer. But judgment is a different matter, Hume says. Judgment
> refers to the attempt to make true statements about the objects being
> considered."
>
> To put this in Pirsigian terms, your tastes (sensations) are Dynamic
> Quality, judgements of truth (conceptions) are intellectual static
> Quality. Both are values, the former being yours alone, the latter being
> socially influenced.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
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 : Tue Feb 10 2004 - 00:31:01 GMT