[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Something that popped into my head as I was reading your post was the 
old saying about "99% Perspiration, 1% Inspiration" with respect to both 
Art and Science.Not sure if the percentages are correct but this seems 
to sum up the intellect-DQ relationship.

Cheers

Horse

On 30/06/2010 21:12, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> Great post! Thanks. It's going to take me awhile to think about what you've
> written. But, to my mind this is the direction we should go if we ever want to
> add anything significant to the understanding and value of the MOQ, not that it
> doesn't have great value already. The last few lines of Pirsig's SODV paper
> have always intrigued me.
>
> "They were at the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to
> bring something out of that unknown into a static form that would be of value
> to everyone. As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two
> different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the largest sense
> it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences because
> in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never really been
> separated. They have always been different aspects of the same human purpose."
>
> It's this joining of art and science under the code of Quality that I find a
> logical extension of the MOQ whereby different branches of knowledge now
> pursuing different goals with different methods unite in common "human
> purpose."
>
> That's my challenge, anyway, and why your post was of great value to me.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
> On 30 Jun 2010 at 14:51, Horse wrote:
>
>    
>> 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?
>>>        
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>    

-- 

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