Going back to the original questions...
> 1) Does art still have a dynamic role today?
Yes, see below - question 1.
> 2) What is technology? (in moqist terms: what are its values?).
Technology is the social expression of science intellectual ideas. See below
- question 2
> 3) How can technology evolve everyday faster (in moqist terms: what is its
> dynamic aspect, its meaning?)
Since ideas (hypotheses) are nearly infinite, the geometric progression of
human population create a geometric progression of ideas. Technology is the
social expression of scientific ideas and they grow with the population. The
dynamic aspect is to create greater detail of scientific knowledge. As a
social level phenomenon, it's first precept is to continue itself as a
phenomenon. *Woody's Maxim: Any social institution's primary purpose is to
ensure the survival of the social institution.* Not discussed below.
> 4) Pirsig says that at its birth technology was art: if it's so, what
> happened to separate art and technology? (in moqist terms: in which step of
> evolution it happened?)
The S/O split created a system of thought that promoted a set of theory
growth in the physical/chemical/biological fields that required separating
technology from Art. But it is a 'virtual' and false separation. The MOQ
provisions that the Intellectual level actually exists as a true Subject and
Object under the umbrella concept of Quality. There was an apparent
separation in order to eliminate the unquantifiable variables.
> 5) Is this divorce definitive? (in moqist terms: is this divorce moral?)
No because of the reasoning in question 4.
In this essay I use several terms to describe the interface between levels,
in particular, the terms Control and Principle to describe the Social unit
that governs the Biolgical Level and the Intellectual unit to govern the
Social Level, respectively. Please try to understand my meaning behind the
words when deciphering my essay rather than discarding them out of hand. We
accept IntPOV, try mine. Also, my use of capitals is very important,
especially in the use of art/Art.
1) Does art have a dynamic role today?
A while back(in the MD forum) I noted my concept of Art as any activity not
pertaining to reproduction or survival (biological concerns) and the basic
idea comes from the artist Scott McCloud. I hope that many people out there
will see this as an extension of reality=morality and Art as the expression
(good or bad) of rt. Once you have this definition of Art, you get a huge
continuum of high Art and low Art. When I use the terms high Art and low
Art, I am refering to a relationship between a given activity or product to
the historical tradition of the specific field of Art (be it painting or
rotisserie assembling). The relationship itself being perceived as Dynamic
Quality (what you like).
>From this I want to take the idea of people being suspended in language
further, to people being suspended in Art.
Just as the Intellectual level is an extension from the Social Level, Art/rt
is extended within the Social to the Intellectual. But as with Marco's
formula of Technology:Social = Art:Intellect, you must realize that we are
still dependent on the inorganic/biolgical levels. Maybe Stable
complexity:Inorganic=Expansion:Biological exists along with the others. But
it's all a dynamic expansion/expression of the given level. I agree with
Phil's ideas that artists see the Art of art(as traditionally defined (eg
painting, sculpture, literature, etc) mostly in art and the scientists see
Art of science mostly in science. It is probably inherent in traditional art
to see Art as residing as the OBJECT rather than the IDEA (the Art of a work
of art such as the Mona Lisa resides soley in the painting). But it's a false
perspective. In modern art, this is taken to extremes in that the meaning
of the painting is very dependent on the historical context of the painting
(eg. what a cubist painting is trying to say about the surface of the actual
painting and the subject it is representing) Pirsig does mention this when
he talks about scientist today not being nearly as abhorrent to modern art as
before when they understood the context of the work. Scientists have an
easier time seeing the reality of ideas before the objects. The MOQ sees the
actual reality of Ideas while I believe John Beasley continues to believe in
the idea of the art object itself to be the sole possessor of Art. John's
1/20 post (the Gablick post) tries to hold the to the Ideas (virtues in art)
but denies that the MOQ is doing precisely the same thing. His pursuit of
beauty and vitality is a pursuit of Ideas. His argument is that most of art
is not high Art, but he forgets that it is still, in reality, Art - maybe not
high Art, but Art all the same. Am I getting anywhere?
Thanks to Bo for reminding us that every physical object resides in all the
levels (in relation to us humans), and that our point of view creates our
judgement about a work of art, be it the inorganic paint, or the aesthetic
picture, or the social commentary that the work teaches us about ourselves.
Dynamic Quality affects all the levels all the time, just in a different
scale.
But the key of my argument is it's definition of Art. That leads us to
question 2
What is technology?
Technology is the social expression of scientific Intellectual Ideas.
Remember my definition of Art as any activity not pertaining to survival and
reproduction? Well, I want us to look at why we do things besides those
pertaining to survival and reproduction besides the fact that we can't be
eating and having sex all our lives (as much as we want to). Well, the
artist Scott McCloud mentions three...for outside stimulus, for an emotional
outlet, and for useful discoveries. Today, Outside stimulus is provided by
our sports and hobbies; emotional outlet is self-expression (for many this is
'Art' but not to us); useful discoveries is, of course, technology. Useful
discoveries led to the power to Control the inorganic/biological world.
Control is dynamic freedom from the lower levels and the beginning of the
Social level through it's handmaidens Celebrity/Influence and Organization
(hierarchies-"me chief, you peon" you might even describe this as Power).
I have stated before (in MD posts) my belief that the basic unit of the
intellectual level is the creation of Principles, but this is where ideas
come in as a reality separate from an object. It is the creating of a
subject without an object while chasing Quality. This might sound as if I
actually believe in the S/O split, but I'm trying to say that the Principle
has truly created both a Subject and an Object in the traditional
philosophical sense. It's not allowed in the MOQ to divide it two parts. I
suppose you could say that VALUE(what makes up both subjects and objects) is
created in Principle.
Forming Principles that describe unseen explanations of what's going on in
the world is an amazing discovery. Eventually it was seen that there were
explanations of the social level that could be made through Principles.
Using these Principles, dynamic individuals decided to make more complex
ideas about how to Influence Society. And when Socrates died for his
Principles, we have one of the first documented cases where Intellect
defeated Social (we may be suspended in language, but written language has
taken us even further).
Going back to technology, the use of Principles gave us even more refined
(and precise) Useful Discoveries. But in order to do so, the Intellect
created the 'virtual' world of Subjects and Objects. It needed to do this in
order to eliminate variables that could not be quantified for equations and
theories. Since they existed at different Quality Levels, they didn't react
much to each other and so could be ignored. But once the Useful Discoveries
became a part of everyday life, so could the idea that the other levels were
dismissable. And therein lies the problems of today.
As an example, I'd like to refer to David Thomas's concept of Micro$oft vs.
Linux and his Cathedral/Bazaar model but take in another perspective. We
have a big company who's main concern is the development of the
company(survival) vs. a bunch of individuals who's main concern is creating
something good (art). But it is not possible for an Artist to ignore his/her
survival. An eternal compromise has always sprung up between Art and Biology
that has not gone away. I was reading a news article yesterday on zdnet
about the creator of Linux at an expo of his new employer . It talked about
what excited him the most about his creation...being able to play the game
Quake III on his operating system. But this was all part of a demonstration
of Linux's capabilities, of course. Some people call it 'selling out ones
Art' but it's just Society vs. Biology all over again. And when the Art is
being used to put the Society as greater than the Idea, it's immoral. And in
the Social world it's the conflict of Research & Development spending versus
the actual profit attained through the sale of technology that comes from
scientific discovery. In every field of study there is the case for "selling
out" vs. "dying for your principles." But if you die for your principles,
you are also saying "my Art has no PRACTICAL Value whatsoever..." And so it
goes.
I'm trying to figure out where I should go from here. I guess I need to
support my idea that it's a 'virtual' divorce.
I had actually been wavering on the idea of actual or virtual divorce.
Thinking over it I went for logical consistency, and thus I had to take the
idea of a 'virtual' divorce. The reasoning behind it is that there would not
be a continuum of art between the Social and the Intellectual, and the Art of
the Idea residing in the object of the art work itself as well. Furthermore,
I believe in the importance of Subject/Object Logic as a major part of the
Intellectual Level so I have to accept it as being an existing system of
value.
And equating Art to the creation of value necessitates it since, according to
the MOQ, both subject and object spring from the value. To me that puts the
noun back into the whole argument.
I hope I didn't just create the Metaphysics of Xcto to all of you...
Xcto
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST