LS Re: Esthetics


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:25:49 +0100


Diana!

Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Dear squad
>
> I'm glad to see the aesthetic aspect of Dynamic and static quality
> hasn't raised too many objections. But looking over the principle I'd
> like to change "Dynamic Quality is more pleasing than static quality" to
> "Dynamic Quality is more compelling than static quality."
>
> The purpose of saying something like this was to explain the aesthetic
> nature of Dynamic Quality, which I think is essential to its
> understanding. I rather not use the word "aesthetic" because I tend to
> associate it with established concepts of beauty. By which I mean the
> beauty in fine art and classical music. The "pleasingness" of DQ,
> however, relates as much to the beauty of a well run office or a good
> comedy routine, or anything at all that is just well executed.
>
> I've gone off "pleasing" because it sounds too lame. Static quality can
> also be pleasing at times in a comforting, familiar sort of way.
> "Compelling", is much better because it shows that DQ comands attention.
> It also shows that DQ isn't always exactly pleasing in a normal sense of
> the word. DQ is what makes us look when we see a car crash, for
> example. On the one hand it seems to be vulgar to enjoy watching
> someone else's tragedy but we can't help wanting to look. It's the
> Dynamic Quality that compels our attention.
>
> Another thing that I want to deal with is Magnus' comments about whether
> or not Dynamic Quality is more moral than static. This is repeated
> several times throughout Lila and for the purposes of the principles I'd
> like to stick as closely to the book as possible so we really have to
> keep that in. As for what exactly it means, the only way I can come to
> terms with it is to revise our concept of what is "good".
>
> The "Good" in the Metaphysics of Quality isn't as sort of lovely,
> pretty, happy kind of good that we normally associate with that word.
> It's not a serene, light filled, new agey type of good either. The MoQ
> good is beautiful alright, but it's terrible and awesome at the same
> time. This quote might not be exactly right but in the Zohar it says
> something like: "God is not an uncle. He is an earthquake."
>

I usually don't quote complete posts but this one deserves repeating.
You have bridged the gap, thank you!

        Magnus

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
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 - 16:42:39 CEST