From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 01:59:53 GMT
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. I was going to ask Platt where the
Code of Art was discussed, but you've cleared that up. Sounds like
it's just a different way of referring to the perpetual tension
between DQ and SQ.
Of course Pirsig himself said there's no reason to limit the number
of levels to four; and I kind of like the idea of an Art level, maybe
between the Social and Intellectual, just ti irk my friend Platt.
OTOH, as you reminded us, Quality is Realty and everything we do is
art: philosophy, motorcycle maintenance, kicking stones and raking
leaves; so a separate Art level becomes redundant.
Anyway, thanks for quotes and discussion.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
On 9 Dec 2004 at 11:14, Steve Peterson wrote:
Hi Platt, all
Platt said to msh:
> The Code of Art level was hinted at by Pirsig. I think it will
> be the next evolutionary step, but unfortunately I won't be around
> to see it. Maybe one of my paintings will survive long enough to be
> a part of it.
>
I don't interpret Code of Art to be a level as in a type of pattern.
Pirsig uses the term "moral codes" frequently in Lila. I think he
uses it to refer to rules for establishing moral supremacy between
levels rather than saying that the code itself is a specific level.
Platt is referring to this: "Finally there's a fourth
Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a
"code of Art" or something like that..."
I think Pirsig is referring to the Dynamic-static moral code as in
this quote:
"The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of
morals, there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-
inorganic, social-biological, intellectual-social, and Dynamic-
static. This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life
isn't defined by society or intellect or biology."
So I don't see Pirsig as suggesting that there are such things as
"artful patterns of value." He says that everything fits into the 4
static levels plus DQ.
More examples of Pirsig's use of codes follow:
First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
that established the supremacy of the social order over biological
life-conventional morals-proscriptions against drugs, murder,
adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that
established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social
order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the
press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a
code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or something like
that, but art is usually thought of as such a frill that that title
undercuts its importance. The morality of the brujo in Zuńi-that was
Dynamic morality.
What's at issue here isn't just a clash of society and biology but a
clash of two entirely different codes of morals in which society is
the middle term. You have a society-vs.-biology code of morals and
you have an intellect-vs.-society code of morals. It wasn't Lila
Rigel was attacking, it was this intellect-vs.-society code of
morals.
The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of
morals, there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-
inorganic, social-biological, intellectual-social, and Dynamic-
static. This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life
isn't defined by society or intellect or biology. What's good is
freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom
doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns
themselves.
This soup of sentiments about logically non-existent entities can be
straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is
meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-
society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by
jury; habeas corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are
all intellect-vs.-society issues.
According to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not
just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They
are essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower
level of life. They are for real.
But what the Metaphysics of Quality also makes clear is that this
intellect-vs-society code of morals is not at all the same as the
society-vs.-biology codes of morals that go back to a prehistoric
time. They are completely separate levels of morals. They should
never be confused.
The central term of confusion between these two levels of codes is
"society." Is society good or is society evil? The question is
confused because the term "society" is common to both these levels,
but in one level society is the higher evolutionary pattern and in
the other it is the lower. Unless you separate these two levels of
moral codes you get a paralyzing confusion as to whether society is
moral or immoral. That paralyzing confusion is what dominates all
thoughts about morality and society today.
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 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 03:56:42 GMT