RE: MF what's art ; what's technology ?

From: Andreas Deppner (
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 14:22:08 GMT

A Good day to You,

Some more fragments and reflections on the ongoing discussion and some
comments on very enjoyable posts. Thanks to Bo and Marco for there sensible
response on my first steps as an MF baby.
I wonder if David Buchanan writes his letters in one go, without ever
hesitating. The quality I sense behind these letters is like ready (most)
and just created thoughts become a sinfonic piece of writing. And then there
is this new synthesis (but not always). I probably have a similar way of
trying allthough the results differ in character and quality. Both are
aspects of the position one holds dealing with the question: Why did Art and
technology split and how can we deal with the apperance ?

I'd like to recite a poem, unfortunately I forgot the author. If someone
knows please tell me. It is a short one and I have to translate it into

Be aware of Your thoughts
Because Your thoughts will be Your words
Be aware of Your words
Because Your words will be Your doings
Be aware of Your doings
Because Your doings will be Your habits
Be aware of Your habits
Because Your habits will be Your destiny

Quoting this poem is the pre intellectual beginning for my reasoning. There
are two central ideas I find important as an addition to our work. One is
distance to one's own self, resulting from overusing the SOM
thinking/development tools. The other one is a try to combine our abstract
ideas with the social positions of the people who brought the SOM kid up in
the beginning.
Regarding the technology/art split John Leighton Ellis writes:

I am not so sure it ever has separated... I think what has separated is
people seeing art in technology... and technology as art...

A good point.
In one way or another this thought already appeared in our
discussion/development. And of course the SOM directed our ways of thinking
into the habit of separating art and technology.
 In the very beginning people just wanted to clean there minds from
mysticism and emotion to work in peace on things related to logic. Thinking
about the times this is not only understandable - it was necessary to
survive. People needed the intellectual distance to work and secure the
results of logic reasoning.
First the followers of SOM thought logical, then they talked logical
(meaning they used the SOM frame), then they did logical things. This became
a habit and they forgot where they STARTED IN THE BEGINNING. And this is
very understandable. Seeing what I know (not a lot),about Pascal, Kepler,
Copernicus, Gallilei, Leonardo. The SOM grip on everyday life started with
these men. Their whole world changed and they were in the middle of it (Like
we are now). This was magic/dynamic quality. The renaissance one of the most
dynamic times for mankind.
But when Leibniz says (Excuse me for these mediocre translations) " This is
the best of all possible worlds" it is a statement of enlightenment AND
despair. Enlightenment due to the excorcism of scholastic dogmatism. Despair
due to the recognition that god is not a near and caretaking god (this
probably coming out of putting SOM in a central and unmovable position in
there logical reasoning).
 So Leibniz cleared his plate of mysticism and the only thing left was
logic. This is not much but it is all we have he might have thought. He
could not go back to static attitudes because he would have endangered the
only thing defining the creative side of his existence. As a believing
christian he was close to his own self and he did not have to fear any
disorientation and there was so much to do. This ideologic establishing of
scientific empirism is the result of a purification and coming out of a
fight. The win as Mr. Pirisig explains was total. Empirism 10 - Mysticism 1.
But we play in both teams - Everyone of us.
So the use of SOM turned more and more into an unaware habit. A habit most
people use these days without reflection and without respect regarding the
structurizing power this idea has in our everyday thinking. And the unaware
use of this habit brings us closer to a certain deathbringing fate.

David Buchanan writes:
The split between art and technology is predicated on subject/object dualism
but it has been amplified by the recent ascent of the scientific worldview.
The split between art and science was finalized by scientific objectivity.
The divorce papers were sealed by the industrial revolution.

Yes. And this brought us even further away from mysticism and the old idea
of the good. The distance grew. We rode the logic train powered by the
capitalist's engine and fed by money. And now we went so far away that we
have a great distance to the non logical side of our existence. A distance
so far that a lot of people think their intellectual self is identical with
their whole self. But they are enslaved to a limited world view. A
limitation which was a virtue and turned into a metaphysical cage.

John Beasley writes:
I have argued before that when we get to the intellectual (and artistic)
level, quality is a
function of experience and training as much as of perception, and that human
beings have a
seemingly inherent tendency to branch out into more and more arcane pursuits
where they
are masters of esoteric quality in a world of the uninitiated.

Very well said and it is good that John talks in another language because he
has different habits :). Hopefully I understand what You say, John. This
statement is criticism and IMO an request for action.
I would say. Be aware and sort the Good ones from the Bad ones. Mr. Pirsig
says: " Which comes first!". Frank Sinatra sang: " I did it my way!"
Get rid of all the useless shit and you know - one way of billions.
 The most important thing to work on is the distance to Your own self. The
closer you are to Your own self the more you are a creative person, painting
pictures, repairing motorcycles, writing risky letters to friendly people
you don't know. All these doings as results of words, as results of
thoughts, as results of an pre intellectual access (the closer you are the
better) to the GOOD in Yourself. This reminds of Marco's ért', an idea which
I liked very much.

So in a way the moq forum is looking back and we see a high mountain of our
own habits and doings and words and thoughts. Mr. Pirsig turned on the light
and gave me the chance to change my view.

We can and must relax. These days art, in a intellectually non definable
sense, is one of the gates we may pass, back on the way to our real self. In
a way we go home. The difference is that we have the tool of logical
reasoning in our rucksack. So we are strong and we can be tender and

Take Good care and express Yourself, Andreas -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST