[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark 15-10-06: Hello David.
Before diving into this mess i wonder if a few statements can be made  
regarding The Code of Art (COA)
Let's begin with Lila:
'Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed  
you could call it a "code of Art" or something like that, but art is usually  
thought of as a such a frill that that title undercuts its importance.' (Lila.  
ch. 13.)
So, COA is:
Dynamic morality.
Dynamic morality is not a code.
It is problematic to call Dynamic morality a "code of Art."
I suspect the problem with using the phrase COA is a cultural one; our  
(Western) culture does not appreciate its importance.
If this is so, why not abandon formulating a Formalised COA and formulate a  
Formalised Dynamic morality instead, thus bypassing any cultural blind  spots?
It looks like you have now given yourself the task of formalising DQ.
By definition, formalising is the process of applying form. This is  
beginning to sound like defining isn't it?
You are trying to defining DQ.
Are you beginning to discern a problem looming here?
 
To indicate the magnitude of what is being said, how about we replace, 'The  
Code of Art' (COA) in the rest of this post with, 'Dynamic morality' (DM) and  
see what happens...
 
Hi Mark,

<snip>
 
Mark said:
If democracy is an example of DM then my  suggestion DM is not a prominent 
aspect of my culture...' seems to  have  been fatally challenged.

David responds  15-10-06:
That DM works in our culture, such as Democracy, doesn't mean  it necessarily 
has a 'prominent place' in our culture.
 
Mark 15-10-06: This sentence reads you equate DM with Democracy. Democracy  
is DM.
However, if you are saying, 'Democracy is an example of DM at work' then  are 
you saying:
1. Every time democracy is at work DM is at work, or
2. Democracy provides the conditions for DM to work.
If 2 you agree with me don't you?
Mark: 'I argue it (democratic institutions) provides good conditions  for DM 
to be followed.' (Maxwell 2003)
By 1. To say Democracy does not have a prominent place in our culture is  
ridiculous.
Therefore, to say DM on your terms, does not have a prominent place in our  
culture is also ridiculous.
By 2. This speaks for itself.
 
David:
Freedom, for instance, is hailed as the great thing of Democracy.   
However, freedom as a negation of patterns, is not the best thing.
 
Mark 15-10-06: What you are saying here is: Freedom is relative to Dynamic  
response.
Negation of patterns may be chaotic (this is where The edge of Chaos  
uniquely provides the ontology to talk about relative Dynamic responses).
However, negation may be similar to unity or coherence. Coherence is a  
relationship between sq which, 'At this point, I intuitively felt patterns  became 
less differentiated though simultaneously retaining structure; hence  avoiding 
the extremes of chaos and stagnation. This understanding had been there  all 
along but had not sufficiently impressed itself upon me.' (ibid)
Having identified the relativity of Dynamic response you may be able to  
understand why i insist conditions have to be right for DM to be followed.
 
David:
Our culture doesn't have the words or insight to describe sufficiently  well, 
what is so great about Democracy, it doesn't have the words to describe  when 
your doing something radically good to the negation of pattern  (freedom)
 
Mark 15-10-06: David: '...freedom as a negation of patterns, is not the  best 
thing.'
But apparently you feel it is, 'radically good.'
 
David:
or when your just doing something indescribably better (DQ).
 
Mark 15-10-06: DQ is 'just' 'something indescribably better.'
This is a complete shambles David. I'm becoming quite disturbed that you  
have your hands on the editorial controls of a public interface with the Public  
domain of information.
 
David:
The MOQ combines this language of the East with the language of the West  
brilliantly.
 
Mark 15-10-06: It may indeed do this but you're managing to make it  
incomprehensible and confusing.

Mark said:
>From 'The edge of  Chaos':
"Society and art express sweet spots in justice, temper, character,  and 
grace. One example presented by Robert Pirsig in LILA is the Marshal plan.  Here, 
static social institutions of American [Democratic] government are  harmonised 
with the Dynamic celebrity status of the particular social patterns  of the 
president Roosevelt himself “the result appears to have resulted in an  overall 
higher state of static quality and Dynamic response." (Maxwell.  2003)

As you can see, I argue the static social institution of American  government 
provides the conditions for Dynamic response to increase, but it can  fall 
away also. I do not argue Democracy is an example of DM. I argue it  provides 
good conditions for DM to be followed.  

David  responds 15-10-06:
IMHO these two sentences are one in the same. According to  the MOQ if there 
are good conditions for 
something good to be followed then  it will be followed.
 
Mark 15-10-06: If this is so, all you have to do to formalise DM is  
formalise the conditions.
The edge of Chaos DOES formalise the conditions:
'I felt the MOQ would describe the sweet spot as a Dynamic event displaying  
high coherence within the static value levels between the extremes of chaotic  
disruption and static stagnation.' (ibid)
The conditions for DM exist in relation to Chaos and Stasis.
(Ian 'psybertron' has made a contribution here, which i think i've  
addressed, but it hasn't been laid out in a paper yet.)

Mark said: 
A  Master has got it - he/she isn't trying to get it.

David responds  15-10-06:
Okay, if it makes it simpler for you, scratch trying. All are  following DM, 
whether trying or  not.

Mark 13-10-06: This relates to  my argument about conditions which encourage 
Dynamic response not being the DM.  It is implicit in Lila that the best 
conditions for Dynamic response share a sq  and a Dynamic aspect.  These aspects 
are not always present.
 
Mark 15-10-06: I think you are incorrect to state, 'All are following DM,  
whether trying or not.'
Since writing my response to this i realised that the conditions  are more 
than implicit, they are explicitly stated:
This division of all biological evolutionary patterns into a  Dynamic
function and a static function continues on up through higher levels  of
evolution.  The formation of semi-permeable cell walls to let food in  and
keep poisons out is a static latch.  So are bones, shells, hide,  fur,
burrows, clothes, houses, villages, castles, rituals, symbols, laws  and
libraries.  All of these prevent evolutionary degeneration.
On  the other hand, the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis
to  permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a  Dynamic
advance.  So is the collective organization of cells into  metazoan
societies called plants and animals.  So are sexual choice,  symbiosis,
death and regeneration, communality, communication, speculative  thought,
curiosity and art.  Most of these, when viewed in a  substance-centered
evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental  properties of the
molecular machine.  But in a value-centered  explanation of evolution they
are close to the Dynamic process itself,  pulling the pattern of life
forward to greater levels of versatility and  freedom. (Lila. ch. 11.)

David responds 15-10-06:
Conditions for Dynamic response do not share a  sq and a Dynamic aspect.
 
Mark 15-10-06: Well, now you've got a quote from Lila which tells you are  
wrong.
 
Dan:
Reality starts with undivided experience. Before explanation and  before 
concepts of DQ. IMHO, trying to 'explain how DQ comes about' does  not tell me, or 
anyone else for that matter, what DQ is. DQ is before  explanation, it is the 
unexplainable. I don't know how else to put it to you,  because it is Before 
explanation.
 
Mark 15-10-06: You've gone from contemplating the conditions which appear  to 
encourage DQ to DQ itself.

Mark said:
Therefore, your statement  that, 'All are following DM, whether trying or 
not' is facile. It is not always  possible to follow DM, because the conditions 
for following DM are not  always present.

David responds 15-10-06:
DQ is *always* present.
 
Mark 15-10-06: But the sq conditions to follow DM are not.
 
David:
Point to a room where DQ is not present.
 
Mark 15-10-06: I agree DQ is always present.
 
David:
Conditions for following DM are always present.
 
Mark 15-10-06: This is where we disagree. In fact, one could define sq as,  
'That which blocks DM.'
The way i have got around this is an insight which said coherent  
relationships between sq patterns open up to DQ.
 
David:
How successful/good at it we are will result in better, higher, more  
Dynamic, sq patterns or not so good, lower, more static patterns.
 
Mark 15-10-06: Ah. I see what you are saying. You're saying DM is relative  
to sq.
This allows you to argue the conditions for following DM are always  present, 
even if those conditions allow bugger all DM.
You use the same argument in democracy. Mark above: What you are  saying here 
is: Freedom is relative to Dynamic response.
This allows you to argue freedom is always present even if there is bugger  
all freedom.
LOL
Lila: '...but art is usually thought of as a such a frill that that title  
undercuts its importance.'
Well, don't worry Mr. Pirsig, at least freedom and the conditions for DM  are 
present.
I'm imagining sitting in a restaurant and being served two French fries on  a 
plate. The waitress observes my incredulity and says, 'Well? You DID order  
French fries didn't you?'

David:
Of course, that is not to say there won't be times when we cannot  see DQ.
 
Mark 15-10-06: Like when there is too much static quality perchance? And a  
corresponding reduction in DM methinks?
 
David:
Zen meditation or something of this ilk helps to reduce these times through  
perfection of sq patterns(rta) which reveals the DQ that has been there all  
along.
 
Mark 15-10-06: rta is not sq David:
'Dharma [rta] is beyond all questions of what is internal and what is  
external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of "rightness" which gives  
structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving  
understanding of the universe which life has created.' (Lila. ch.  30.)

David responded earlier:
Yes I agree,  exactly, 'poor  excellence' *is* an oxymoron and that's why we 
would never say  Hitler was  following DM unless you were trying to show how 
bad at  it he  was.
 
Mark 15-10-06: So DM is relative, it can be good and it can be bad.
We're back to your argument that DM is always being followed even if  there 
is bugger all DM.
 
David:
To be sure, my view of Hitler is that he pursued degenerate  *static*  social 
patterns of celebrity.

Mark 13-10-06: But you've just stated, 'All  are following DM, whether trying 
or not.'I agree Hitler was on a heavy celebrity  trip, but that's high social 
 quality for you. The wider social  consequences of his trip induced chaos on 
a Continental scale. Hardly a work of  DM.

David responds 15-10-06:
Celebrity has high social quality, but  only on the social level.
 
Mark 15-10-06: I disagree. The conditions for Celebrity quality are not  
always present. This allows us to gauge response to DQ.
 
David:
Celebrity, according to the MOQ is degeneracy.
 
Mark 15-10-06: From the view of the intellectual level.
 
David:
Celebrity occurs when you mistake the social level to be the highest of all  
and ignore other, better things, such as intellectualising when they come  
along.
 
Mark 15-10-06: Celebrity and intellect may coincide. Morality depends  on 
which is dominating.
 
David:
The wider consequences of degeneracy are ugly and chaotic as you point out.  
To be sure, in this case DM has not been followed well at all. (and you  
wouldn't mention DM unless trying to show that DQ is everywhere, like I am  here!)
 
Mark 15-10-06: No one is denying DQ is always present. As i said above,  'one 
could define sq as, 'That which blocks DM'
Hitler's social patterns blocked DM.

David  said earlier:
I  Disagree.  I think that rta is a concept. Rta is the concept  of  
perfecting static patterns at which point they disappear (DQ). It uniquely   combines 
SQ and DQ with no conflict.
 
Mark 15-10-06: If Rta is Quality then Quality is a concept.

Mark  13-10-06: All this time you've been formalising DM from a sq point of 
view  and it turns out you're basically searching for what is said in, 'The 
edge of  Chaos.' If you want a conceptual description of excellence then it has a 
name:  Coherence. But, Coherence is NOT DQ. Rta is. So, Rta is not a  concept.

David responds 15-10-06:
What do you see as the benefit of  coherence?  I agree with your conclusion 
from the conference  paper:

"If we reject subjects and objects in this room and wish to  replace them 
with a MOQ description of 
static patterns, then we may be able  to state that relationships between the 
patterns themselves are
either  chaotic, coherent or stagnating depending upon how they are 
responding to  Dynamic Quality."

If something is responding badly to Dynamic Quality  then it is chaotic, if 
something is responding well 
to Dynamic Quality then  it would be of high static quality(coherent). I 
don't see this as part of  Coherence however, IMHO the benefits you see of 
coherence, are already part of  the MOQ.
 
Mark 15-10-06: I was hoping coherence as a relationship between chaos and  
stasis may help us explore the circumstances under which DQ  becomes 
influential. I was talking about this with my Uncle recently - a  practising buddhist and 
the person who gave me my first copy of ZMM - and he  suggested we only see 
these things after they happen. I agree - Coherence  becomes part of our sq 
history.
If coherence is part of the MoQ, then it is not explicitly stated.
I have often felt it is implicit, otherwise it's an advance on the MoQ  
without challenging anything the MoQ says.

David  said:
I think  your sounding like I was with that slippery word  'trying'.  I'll  
catch you on the same thing you did me earlier.  DM has no effort  involved.  
We just follow it. Emphasis on  just.

Mark 13-10-06:  I'm not having that David. From, 'The edge of Chaos':
"If a pattern is in too  static a relationship, it moves to the right and is 
evolutionary dead.  If  the pattern is in too unstable a relationship, it 
moves to the left. The sweet  spot is postulated as a coherent state somewhere 
between these two extremes. At  the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality (DQ), a pattern 
is neither too static or  unstable.  It is here that a process is most 
efficient, art more beautiful  and life more serene."
The 'sweet spot' is the excellent relationship the  Code of Art aims at. 
Masters aim and hit with ease - they aim and hit without  trying. Those without 
mastery try when they aim and this is the source of  problems.

David responds 15-10-06:
Yes I was agreeing, Masters don't  try, they don't do anything.
 
Mark 15-10-06: I would argue this is so because they have encouraged the  
conditions necessary for DM to be followed.
The conditions provide a steady aim.

David had said:
If you want  to keep this word aims however, you could  say 

"DM aims for DQ."  That way, as we both know, DQ has no  effort. If you aim 
at a static  pattern such as excellence, you'll miss DQ.

Mark 13-10-06: Stop a moment.  Who said Excellence is a static pattern?

David responds 15-10-06:
I  did. Are you willing to take it on board, put my hat on for a moment, try 
my  ideas out and see how it fits?
 
Mark 15-10-06: I think i'm happy with my initial response:
Mark  13-10-06:
I suggest it is a relationship between sq patterns. The 'Aim' is a  unifying 
process of alignment if you will. The resulting relationship of the  unifying 
process is a static description - it is by definition the 'best' sq  
relationship.

David responds 15-10-06:
A relationship between sq  patterns is a pattern.  That's all patterns are. 
Relationships.
 
Mark 15-10-06: This is contentious. You may be correct. If so, some  
relationships may be built on existing relationships or modify existing  relationships 
into coherence. I can live with this. I've given it a great deal  of thought.

Mark said:
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.

David  responds:
I agree. I call it  rta!

"There at the center of the most  monotonous boredom of static  ritualistic 
patterns, the dynamic freedom is  found." -RMP

Mark  13-10-06: I call it coherence.

David responds 15-10-06: 
As requested  above, please tell me how I can benefit from coherence in my 
current understand  of the 
MOQ.
>From your conference paper:
"So what use is coherence if  it is simply an additional static description?"
And you agree?

I do  too.
-David.
 
 
Mark 15-10-06: To put it simply:
1. RMP defines Quality in terms of DQ/sq
2. Coherence defines DQ (or perhaps better, the conditions for DM) in terms  
of sq - Chaos/Coherence/Stasis.
Love,
Mark