From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 14:05:49 BST
Hi Sam:
> 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').
Not sure what you're driving at, but if you mean the levels are relative to
one another, yes, I agree. But the static patterns at the inorganic and
biological levels are absolute in that they no longer can be affected by
DQ. Pirsig makes the point that now only living beings (referring to
humans) can respond to DQ. Cockroaches have reached the end of
their evolutionary chain. With humans in "control" of the social and
intellectual patterns, those patterns are more subject to change as a
result of the influence of human responses to DQ, although the social is
very hardened compared to intellect. Since the intellectual patten is
most open to DQ and even seeks it out (if you're pursuing beauty in
whatever you do), that level is, as you say, "to be preferred."
> > > >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
> exactly
> > > 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.
Maybe. I just don't know what Johnny is getting at. That's why I asked.
> > > 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.
I'd rather fetishise DQ than SQ. But there's always the danger in doing
so to forget our dependence on SQ, like the Hippies in the 60's did.
Push the envelope towards greater harmony and beauty, but never
destroy the envelope in the effort. How does that strike you as a general
principle?
Platt
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 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 14:07:07 BST