[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hi Mark,

One type of degeneracy, is a responding to DQ, but on the  wrong level.  
Degeneracy such as having sex instead of creating E=MC^2  before Einstein, in this 
case one is being degenerate but still responding to  the DQ of sex.  

Another type of degeneracy is being a contrarian on  the same level.  For 
example, someone asks you to do something, and you do  the opposite.   This is 
mistaking freedom for DQ. But still a (failed)  attempt at responding to DQ.

All are trying to follow the Code of  Art.  Sometimes successfully as is the 
case with contrarianism, usually  not.
 
Mark 13-10-06: Hello David.
This Code of Art business has been so downgraded to a superficial patina  
slapped on as an after thought in the West i feel unqualified to discuss it in  
depth with you.
The Code of Art is not a prominent aspect of my culture and i've had to  
direct my attension to other cultural sources for insights into what it is  about.
It's a fine thing and i don't wish to insult it.
My position up to now has been to in some way indicate the Code of Art in  sq 
terms. I think this may work if we observe the Code of Art in  action, and to 
do that we need to be as student to Master.
For you to suggest a Master following the Code of Art is on a par with the  
examples of those who are 'trying' to respond to DQ above doesn't make any 
sense  to me. A Master has got it - he/she isn't trying to get it.

David:
I think you could call it The Metaphysics of Excellence, or  The Metaphysics 
of Balance or any of a huge number of other names for the  undefined quality.  
Philosophers in the past and even Ham uses Essence to  describe 'essentially' 
the same thing.  Pirsig chose quality because it is  the least sticky of them 
all, and I agree with him.
 
Mark 13-10-06: Oh shit. I feel like i'm a passenger on an aircraft and i've  
just spied a Monkey at the controls.

So IMHO The Code of Art  produces ontological patterns of excellence.  
Actually I think Excellence  is on the 'high scale' of quality.  

So I think in regards to your  last statement.  

The Code of Art, when followed 'well', produces  ontological patterns of 
excellence (high quality).   

The Code  of Art, when followed 'poorly' produces ontological patterns of low 
 quality.
 
Mark 13-10-06: OK. So your position seems to equate responding to DQ and  the 
Code of Art simpliciter.
They are the same thing.
All patterns respond to DQ, and doing so means they follow the Code of  Art.
But as i've stated, responding to DQ may be degenerate.
In this case, you regard the Code of Art to be followed poorly.
So, in your view, Hitler followed the Code of Art. Poorly to be sure, but  he 
was following the Code of Art non the less. Do you seriously believe this is  
what the Code of Art is all about? Surely, 'poor excellence' is an  oxymoron?

David:
Excellence or 'high quality'.
 
Mark 13-10-06: Therefore, 'poor excellence' is an  oxymoron.

David:
Perhaps this coherence idea works (with excellence as  high quality) but I'm 
not sure.  I'll have a read of the paper and get back  to you.

Also, I'll reply to the other post here to keep the number  down.
 
Mark 13-10-06: Much obliged.

David said:"Because static patterns  exist it is important to emphasize the 
difficulty 
of  everything  following the Code of Art.   While maintaining biological  
and  
social patterns it can be followed using the concept of   [[rta]]."

What do you think? 

Mark replied:
I don't like  this.

David responds:

Care to say why  not?

Cheers,

David.
 
Mark 13-10-06: My take on rta is that it is Quality (DQ). Therefore, rta is  
not a concept.
sq patterns are concepts.
The Code of Art aims for excellent relationship of sq patterns,  and in so 
doing reveals DQ.
Running around in a circle is a sq pattern, and if you do it well enough  you 
will kill those patterns by running a perfect circle and reveal DQ.
Love,
Mark