[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hi Mark,

Mark wrote:
> Here's my twopence worth:
> 1.  "The Code of Art states the supremacy of Dynamic Quality over static   
> 
> quality."
> This seems OK, with  qualifications.

OK, I'll deal with the qualifications below.
 
Mark 10-10-06: Hello David, Happy to be of help if poss.

> 2. "If  you follow Dynamic Quality then you are following the Code of  
>  Art."
> This statement is tricky, because DQ may induce degeneracy.  Alcoholics 
> can  
> follow DQ all the way to hospital for a  new Liver, and the Hippy 
> movement  
> degenerated into all  out chaos.

Agreed,  this is why as the last sentence I write  

"Because static patterns exist, it is important to emphasize a   [[Balance 
between SQ and DQ(another link)]] when dealing with The Code of  Art."  

The first line of this link says:

"The balance  between Dynamic Quality and static quality in this case should 
not be confused  with physical balance or equilibrium, but is used in regards 
to balance as  something that works between two things."

> It may be better to  suggest that the code of Art aims for DQ. *

IMHO, the Code of Art aims  for DQ like everything aims for DQ.  The Code of 
Art uniquely says that  when given two options, the one that is Dynamic is 
more moral.
 
Mark 10-10-06: I'm not sure everything does aim for DQ. It appears there  may 
be evolutionary dead ends that are going nowhere having latched in a  
particularly static fashion.
This introduces a potential misunderstanding.
A. DQ as the goal of cosmological evolution, if you will. And...
B. DQ as the goal of the code of Art.
Above all, the code of Art is excellence, a term i think you should  
introduce into your formalised description.
It sounds counter intuitive to state that some Inorganic patterns are  
excellent, but if there is one Inorganic pattern which may be described as  
excellent, it seems to be the Carbon Atom. It's mind bogglingly excellent in  it's 
ability to bond with other atoms.
Carbon has lead to DNA which has driven Organic evolution for Billions of  
years against the forces of Inorganic matter.
Excellence increases up the levels until our linguistic patterns no longer  
sound counter intuitive when we contemplate social and intellectual excellence, 
 but the excellence we are contemplating may have had its analogues in  
previous levels.
This view harmonises A and B.
The particularly static stands in a relationship to the excellent as chaos  
stands in a relationship to excellence. (But it may be wise to leave that alone 
 for the time being!)
I hope this helps?

> 3. "The Code of Art is part of the Codes and  Laws of the MOQ."
> This is innocuous.

It is a link.
 
Mark 10-10-06: No probs.

> 4. "Unlike other levels which have  Laws governing them, the Intellectual 
> level follows exclusively the  Code of Art..."

> This may be plain incorrect. The code of Art is  above all other levels.  
> 
> Social patterns can be artistic  also. I think the Japanese No dramas use 
> social  
> ritual  on an elaborate scale to convey morality.

I agree, they all follow the  Code of Art, this is why i write "the 
Intellectual level follows *exclusively*  the Code of Art" 

I say exclusively because unlike the other levels which  have other codes and 
laws governing them such as the social level which has The  Law and must also 
succumb to the intellectual-social code of morality.  (I  will put this 
example into the Wiki page to make it clearer.)
 
Mark 10-10-06: As i suggest above, our linguistic patterns make  
consideration of Inorganic and organic excellence appear counter intuitive, but  it may be 
worth contemplating analogues of excellence at these levels. For sure,  
social and intellectual excellence is far more diverse and Dynamic, which is as  it 
should be.


> 5.
> "...and as such is the (intellectual)  level which is on the forefront of 
>  
> creativity."
>  This may be so because it's at the forefront of evolution. But  other  
> levels 
> enter into the Code of Art.
> The Code of Art is  about excellence at every level.

Agree, I've dealt with this  above.

>  
> David:
> Because static patterns exist,  it is important to emphasize a  [[Balance 
> 
> between SQ and  DQ(another link)]] when dealing with The Code of Art.  "
>   
> Mark 10-10-06: There cannot be a balance between sq and DQ, only a  
> balance  
> between sq and sq patterns.
> I think the  sentence, 'One should balance sq and DQ in one's  life' 
> disguises  
> the following: 'One's static patterns should be neither too   static nor 
> too 
> Dynamic.'

I agree, however the phrase is  used to link to 'the balance between SQ and 
DQ page' which contains the 'yin and  yang' symbol among other things.
 
Mark 10-10-06: I'm not sure Yin and Yang equate to DQ/sq. Maybe they do?  
They appear more aligned to +ve and -ve - polar opposites of many descriptions  
observed in nature etc. DQ does not stand in this relation to sq.

That  said I like your sentence better than what I had written as a first 
line on the  SQ DQ Balance Wiki Page so it now reads:

"The balance between Dynamic  Quality and static quality means that ones 
static patterns should be neither too  static nor too Dynamic.  Balance in this 
case should not be confused with  physical balance or equilibrium, but is used 
in regards to balance as something  that works between two things."
 
Mark 10-10-06: I can just about live with this.

> This begs the  question, 'What makes sq patterns more or less Dynamic' 
> and i   
> think the answer to that points toward the Code of Art, because the  Code 
> of 
> Art  aims for DQ*
> 

Yes and again  one should be careful because what appears, looks, feels like 
DQ is not  necessarily DQ.

If your unhappy with these changes let us  know.

Cheers,

David.
 
Thanks David,
Love,
Mark