----- Original Message -----
From: Jaap Karssenberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: Art as a bridge
First when you didn't understand my last post at all I want to
appologize for that, re-reading it I myself am not sure what I
meant for it's way to chaotic. And besides, I found something
far better. It's a long story but it's worth it.
I mentioned the author Harry Mulisch before and for moq-belie-
vers especially his book "De compositie van de wereld" is in
teresting, although it doesn't use MOQ. But about art vs.
technology I had the feeling I missed the point, now I simply
will translate how the book begins:
>Preface to the first edition
>As long as man exists he has exceled especially in three
>things, which can't be found by animals. First in the acqui-
>ring, the rational arranging and the applying of knowledge:
>science and technology (!). Secondly in designing all kinds of
>irrational systems and world-views: the religions, a part of
>the philosophy and all kinds of pseudo-sciences, often with
>pseudo-techniques to match. Thirdly in the art (!) - which
>finds oneself in a certain way between the first and the
>second activity. Because this rational-irrational status repre-
>sents a paradox and in that way in the end is irrational it
>self, art stands closer to the second then to the first acti-
>vity; but she differs from both since she does not exist from
>expressions but from facts, which are neither true or untrue.
>Therefor she is in some sense being "tolerated" by rationa-
>lism, while her relation to the irrationalism is far less pre-
>carious. Religion and art always form a perfect liaison,
>science and art a tense relation.
When you state that art is subjective and technology is
objective then there is no problem because the difference is
invalid in MOQ terms; but it is obvious there IS a difference
between art and technology
In SOM terms the above says that art is the intermedium
between objectivity and subjectivity. In MOQ terms it says
that art is the bridge between the Mythos and the Metaphysics,
or, as you like, between third level thinking and fourth level
thinking, but at the same time "stands out of line" since
(pieces of) art is(/are) not a way of thinking but simply a
thing, a fact. But wait a minute; wasn't that "machinecode-
function" given to language?
Well, in that case I say that language is apperently the most
succesful (most dynamic) art, the most obvious bridge. You can
discuse whether language originates from art but that's
unimportant, the writings that opened the way for the great
(intellectual) thinkers are literature and defenitely art.
Now it also becomes clear why the relations between religion
and art and between technology and art are so different. You
can simply say that religion is third level, technology is
fourth level and art is somewhere in between. Now of course
technology looks down on religion and art as static (or as
subjective). On the other hand religion looks up to art as
very dynamic (it can not see technology that way, for that's
an other level). Art in turn does not to clearly look down on
religion but it definitely consumes religious themes. Since
art does not look up to technology art is apperently more
third level then fourth level, perhaps this is a fraction
caused be years of SOM thinking.
I think the divorce between art and technology is unnatural
because when art is the bridge then technology will lose it's
contact with all lower levels when it loses contact with art.
It makes me think of Dickens' "Hard times". But I think this
contact is at the moment better then a decade or two ago.
Also interesting is Mulisch' definition of "art". He says art
is only Art when it gives you an "eureka"-feeling. The
"feeling" points at the third level, the "eureka" I interpret
as most dynamic. Mulisch does not use any levels so there are
no clear-cut MOQ levels.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST