Phil, David B, and MF group.
It may be the kiss of death for David B to have me praising his
views, but I have to go by way of proxy it seems. I delivered a
response to John Beasley's "crap" message but it's impossible to
defend the MOQ on his premises unless one "resolves a
metaphysical dispute at the end of each sentence", and when not
allowed to it's torture. Btw. I thought foul language was reason for
rejection too?
Enter David Buchanan who elegantly points to the later-that-night
talk between P. and the DeWeeses about the rotisserie tech/art
riddle. I pay tribute to DMB and bangs my head against the wall for
having overlooked that obvious point. Pirsig don't speak of any
tech/art problem in LILA something that indicates that it is resolved
by the MOQ and it is the MOQ we are supposed to discuss.
In LILA Pirsig writes:
> 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.
IMO, art is the eternal dynamics of every static layer.... when it
"bordered" on to DQ - intellects position now, hence the art/tech
problem.
There is not much dynamism in the older levels. No new natural
laws. No new ways of organizing DNA/RNA (here my knowledge is
scant, but you will know what I mean). No new social
configurations in the basic sense, but the intellectual level is open-
ended. No one knows what possible new movement art will spawn.
(not art as a craft - which may be as static as static comes - but
ART as dynamism.
If the above is valid, what was the "art/technology" conflict of the
social level when it was top notch? Once Platt Holden referred to
cave painting as more artful than anything modern. He was right
about that, but I don't really think the conflict ran along those lines;
the stone age existence was magical through and through and the
cave paintings were (part of) their "technology". No, the real
disturbing elements the thinkers who started to doubt the myth, but
hundred thousands of years passed before that took hold.
I won't pursue the "art/technology" further down the static hierarchy
because this runs too long already, but will hopefully return to it
some time.
Philip Wigg wrote:
> Firstly I think a work of art or technology is primarily a inorganic
> pattern of values. It's pretty hard to deny reality. Also they both
> carry an intellectual pattern of values..............etc
IMO it's no use trying to figure out what level "objects" - primarily -
belong to. The gist of the MOQ is that the objective REALITY
(along with the subjective) is invalid as the starting point. Each
value level fills the universe and sees everything as self-value,
or doesn't recognize it it at all. A painting is matter to the inorganic
level. To the biological level it is of no value - as a painting - and to
the social level it is value if it lends status to the owner. Only at the
intellectual level does the "artistic" quality
appear.
A human being is ALL levels and may look at the proverbial
painting from all points of view dependent where focus is. If freezing
to death Leonardo's Mona Lisa is valuable as fuel for a fire that may
save one's biological self. Afterwards when safe the social self will
grit its teeth when thinking about what that painting could have
brought of money or fame. The intellectual self may deem Leonardo
a kitsch painter and thus influence the social reality.
We spend most of the time at the intellectual level, but not much is
needed to shift our view, it's all very dynamic. Most do I agree with
David B about the social level's enormous influence ...something
the SOM is hell bent on overlooking. (another hint that the
connection between SOM and the intellect is uncannily identical)
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST