[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Apologies for not continuing our previous conversation in a similar vein 
- I got waylaid by music!

Hmmm, tricky one this.

The codes that Pirsig talks about illustrate the way a higher static 
level dominates the static level below - organic dominates inorganic, 
social dominates organic, intellect dominates social. He then talks of a 
'dynamic morality' and says that it isn't really a code, not exactly 
anyway, more like a 'code of art'.
In the context it appears, this 'code of art' describes a relationship 
between DQ ('dynamic morality') and intellect. It's not really a code 
because it involves an undefinable element (DQ) and a definable element, 
intellect. If it was a code, in the sense of the previous codes he 
refers to, then it would mean that DQ is defined, which it can't be 
according to the MoQ. Instead of a code maybe we should call it the 
'intellect-DQ relationship' or something similar. The way in which Art 
and Intellect interact. The artistic (dynamic) element dominates 
intellect but is dependent upon it, just as intellect dominates social 
but is dependent upon it, social dominates organic but is dependent etc. 
in the evolutionary structure of the MoQ's hierarchy.
What I think this means is that although intellect is subordinate to 
art, art is not possible without intellect - in the same way that the 
social level is subordinate to intellect but intellect would not be 
possible without the social level. Given that art is unique to humans 
(I'm not aware of art existing elsewhere i.e. in other animals), then 
the 'intellect-DQ relationship' is also unique to humans. So when we 
create music or a painting or a novel (or whatever) then we imply that, 
as art, it has a unique relationship to human intellect. Intellect is 
necessary but not dominant. The act of creating is dynamic but the 
result is static may be another way of putting it. Maybe!

Re: your question "... the MoQ, like art, isn't static, or shouldn't be 
anyway." you would have to consider whether there is an element of art 
in the MoQ (creation) and what relationship does that have to the 
intellectual pattern that is the MoQ. If you're saying that the MoQ is 
art then, by implication, it can't be defined and as such is not a 
metaphysics. I think the best way I can think of at the moment to answer 
this is to say that the relationship of DQ to the MoQ is covered by the 
'intellect-DQ relationship'. In this way Quality (DQ/SQ) gives a defined 
element (SQ - MoQ) and an undefined element (DQ) as the relationship. 
Pirsig created the MoQ (artistic) and the result is a static pattern.

I'm not sure if this is the best answer or the one you want to hear but 
anyway, that's my initial take on it.

Cheers


Horse



On 28/06/2010 20:20, Platt Holden wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi Platt
>>
>> Where did Pirsig say this? I believe he talked about a code of art and this
>> was in the context of relating Intellect to DQ. If there is a level of art
>> then it becomes static quality - something that art is not - or shouldn't be
>> anyway!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>   Horse
>>      
>
> Hi Horse,
>
> Chapter 13 of Lila. The context is the supremacy of higher moral codes of
> lower with the top being Dynamic morality which might be called a code of
> art  From Pirsig's comments about the MOQ being open to improvements
> (philosophy vs. philosophology) I presume the MOQ, like art, isn't static,
> or shouldn't be anyway. What do you think?
>
>    

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa