Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 07:29:53 +0100
> Maggie wrote:
]> > I think rhyme must be a social pattern, because it seems to be a very
> powerful > > and basic component of primitive language, which was social. I don't
> think > > it's coincidental that rhyme also involves aural pattern matching, a
> biological > > ability that may be more direct (non-intellectual? non-social?) than
> other > > types of human pattern matching, such as visual.
> > Rhythm is important in poetry, and rhythm is a very strong biological
> pattern, > > one that has a close (can it be connecting?) counterpart in primitive
> social > > patterns.
> > I wonder whether music and poetry don't owe their unique power to some
> close > > link or balance that affects or involves all the levels in the same
> reaction, > > ie DQ operating at more than one level (whereas in most interactions, the
> > matching, or breaking, or decision event involves one level).
and Platt said:
> Excitement is what I felt as I read your MoQ analysis of poetry. Pirsig
> hints at a level above the intellectual in Chapter 13, "... a 'code of Art'
> or something like that ..." You have opened the door to that level by
> explaining how poetry (and perhaps all art) manages to give us direct, pure
> experience of each level's interpenetration and dynamic interplay. Further,
> your definition of truth as that which resonates with an individual's value
> patterns definitely resonates with me.
Glad to see we're back on the subject of art.
I think we need to make a distinction between art in its most mundane
sense -- any patterns of music, painting, dance -- and Art as in any
endeavour taken to the level that it becomes an Art (note the capital "A").
That can be anything - the Art of music or painting, but equally the Art of
computer programming, basketball playing, hotel management.
Pirsig's code of Art is I think refering only to the second type and it's a
synonym for dynamic quality; he probably didn't want to use the word Art
because it is too easily confused with art in its usual meaning.
I've often wondered if the fifth level might be an artistic level. But I tend
to think not. Art in its highest sense is simply dynamic quality, and I can't
see why static patterns of art should be a higher level of evolution than
science or even social patterns. The arts are primarily attempts to invoke
dynamic quality through the senses. Music, images, dance are understood
biologically so that's where they belong.
Today arts are overlaid with social and intellectual patterns. But I'd like
to get down to what they all have in common or at least where they originated.
All paintings are food for the eyes; only some are food for the viewer's
social and intellectual values. Literature, or story telling, seems to be
different from the rest of the arts as it doesn't rely so much on the senses.
On the other hand, it may fill some emotional need.
Diana
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:06 CEST