From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 20:33:35 GMT
Hi Squank,
I notice an ever-so-slight change in your demeaner. Your manners are
improving, but you should continue to work on this.
sq: WE ARE ALL ARTISTS.
I don't think so. But, we may have a different idea of what an artist is.
sq: WE ALL KNOW QUALITY WHEN WE SEE IT
I don't think this is true at all. Otherwise, you and I would not disagree
on the Quality of Matts essay. Quality is conditioned. I would go as far
as saying it exists on the social level, if we wish to use Pirsig's
definition. We don't know what Quality is until we have been shown by
others. Unless we are speaking in the limited sense of Quality as that of
the hot stove. I don't think Quality encompasses pain. In order to "know"
Quality in ART, we have to be conditioned within social patterns. I want
to think there is some essence in works of art that I consider high quality
which doesn't exist in works I consider low quality, but I think this is an
illusion. OK, then we get to the ambiguous term of dynamic quality. DQ is
not in a work of ART. DQ would be present only in the act of creating art.
DQ is always be present, but only in the moment. And as one of your
definitions stated it cannot be formally defined. We can only talk around
in conversation and by experience. This is my takeaway from Pirsig, read
through my experience. I appreciate anyone who can add to this reading and
that is why I read the forum page. I am not looking for Masters or Art.
Matt has added a lot to my reading of Pirsig. What do you have to add?
still hopeful,
Andy
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:24:03 EST SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> However, your
> interpretation of all these philosophers "you like" and your
> characterization of Pirsig as "the real thing" is another example of your
> inability to communicate in a precise language. By precise, I mean,
> backing up your assertions with some logical arguments or empirical
> evidence. I suspect this is what you find distasteful in Matt (his
> ability
> to be precise). Your retreat to "knowing" Quality when you see it and
> never getting beyond this in conversation may be enough for yourself in
> meditation and contemplation, but it offers nothing in communication with
> others.
>
> So, I will continue to hope....
>
> Thanks again,
> Andy
>
> Hi Andy,
> Wait a moment!
> The philosophers i stated i like were indicated to illustrate that i like
>
> philosophy in general, and also that i like a broad and colourful pallet.
>
> Having said that, i don't bang on about Spinoza in a way that i know will
>
> confuse anyone who has not indulged Spinoza?
> You say i fancy myself as an artist? Well, that is so. But i do not fancy
>
> myself as an artist at the exclusion of those who are to be considered
> non-artists. WE ARE ALL ARTISTS.
> I am not a master artist, and masters of any art aim at Quality.
> If Matt is a master of precise logical argumentation, i must be patterned
> in
> such a manner as to be blind to it? Matt is a value blind spot i cannot
> see?
> Now Quality. WE ALL KNOW QUALITY WHEN WE SEE IT.
> I do not reserve such knowledge for myself. We are all in it together.
>
> Getting that across can very often be achieved by belting you over the
> head
> with a stick.
>
> squonk.
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 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 20:33:49 GMT