Re: MD Undeniable Facts

From: Elizaphanian (
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 17:44:29 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Hi Platt,

    Thought I'd throw in a few comments on your discussion. You said to Johnny,

    > I don't agree that wanting to break free from static patterns "maligns"
    > static patterns in any way.

    Would it be fair to say that you want to 'relativise' the static patterns?
    (I'm not trying to be clever with 'relativism' here). What I mean is that
    where the static patterns dominate and prevent DQ they are (effectively)
    absolutes; a DQ breakthrough will therefore relativise those static patterns
    by showing something of higher quality, which was not encompassed by those
    patterns. And, moving beyond that, a static pattern which leaves open the
    prospects of - or even seeks out - higher quality, is to be preferred (I
    think Pirsig puts it as 'the pencil is mightier than the pen').

    > > >Where did you find that "code of art?" Is that yours or somebody else's
    > > >idea? It's certainly not mine.
    > >
    > > Pirsig mentions the "code of art" - I don't have it in front of me
    > > where, but all we need to note is that it is a CODE. A law, a pattern.
    > OK, what's the "law of art?"

    I seem to recall a discussion last year sometime about the code of art,
    which you thought might represent a fifth level. I'm not sure if that's what
    Johnny is getting at but it might be.

    > What is a "Spinal Tap" way? Are you admitting something can be better
    > than old static patterns?

    Spinal Tap is a rather wonderful film, full of DQ. "Ours go to eleven...."

    > > Why does not every new record strike us as great, then?
    > Because not every new record is any good.

    I agree with this. What interests me is how the Quality of the new is
    assimilated into the SQ tradition of the old, and, if you like, what the
    'relative merits' of SQ and DQ are. I agree that we need both, my worries
    are that there is tendency to fetishise DQ on its own.


    "Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to
    have gained a great deal." Wittgenstein, 1948

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 17:47:42 BST