MF Discussion Topic for February 2005

From: sqsqcoherence@netscape.net
Date: Sun Feb 20 2005 - 03:43:47 GMT

  • Next message: Matt poot: "RE: MF Discussion Topic for February 2005"

    Mark 20-02-05:
    I agree with dmb's super response to Sam's enquiery, apart from his approach to aesthetics.

    Aesthetics is concerned with beauty.
    Beauty does not have to be construde as biological sense.
    Social and Intellectual patterns are beautiful also.
    From Wikipedia, the free (on-line) encyclopedia:
    "Since actions or behavior can be said to have beauty beyond sensory appeal, aesthetics and ethics often overlap to the degree that this impression is embodied in a moral code or ethical code."
    The notion that aesthetics is moral, or ethical, is supported by the MoQ's code of Art. dmb agrees:

    It's (sense of value) the sense of rightness behind the static patterns, if you will.

    Mark 20-02-05:
    Here, dmb is equating rightness with value. This can only make sense if understood as aesthetic, otherwise, (quality and value being synonyms in the MoQ), dmb is saying, 'it's the sense of value behind the static patterns of value, if you will' which doesn't say anything.

    Pirsig said in Lila's Child, Note 97:
    The key term here is 'evaluation', i.e. quality decisions. The
    fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it."

    Mark 20-02-05:
    If we accept that dmb agrees evaluation, or code of art, involved in choosing Intellectual patterns is an aesthetic, then his statement, "He (Pirsig) abandons the classic/romantic split because the mystical experience is NOT theoretic or aesthetic, it is something else" conflates two uses of the term aesthetic; one provided by himself, and one provided by the MoQ. Both are conflated with mysticism.
    While mysticism is certainly not the same as dmb's own particular use of the term aesthetic = romantic surface appearence, it is by no means certain that mysticism cannot be equated with the sublime.
    dmb equates romantic with aesthetic, and classic with theory. But ZMM does not do this. ZMM suggests that the classic has its own austere beauty. This supports the primacy of beauty in the MoQ: Intellectual patterns are chosen on aesthetic grounds, but beauty is not theoretical; aesthetics is an aspect of sq's relationship with DQ at all levels of evolution.
    I'll give anyone who can tell me what this relationship is called a glass of Single malt. (You may choose to add ice and water, depending on your own patterned relationships with DQ, in order to find the best mix. Ahhhh! That hits the spot! Beautiful!)

    Cheers,
    Mark

    __________________________________________________________________
    Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
    As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

    Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

    New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
    Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
    Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
    MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 20 2005 - 03:48:16 GMT