[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Mark and Ham,

<snip>

[Steve H]
>From my understanding of Pirsig, the painting on the wall  causes the
viewer to reflect on it, producing Intellectual Quality.  If  it
doesn't, that person may have no preference between the wall and  the
painting (although I would guess that most people would pick  the
painting).  Same thing goes with music vs. random noise.

Just  a thought,
Steve H

Mark: Hello Steve.
I think you are about right with the reflection stuff.
SH: 'From my understanding of Pirsig, the painting on the wall causes the  
viewer to reflect on it, producing Intellectual Quality.'
What it may come down to is static expectation (the complete sq  patterned 
repertoire of 'you') and a DQ event with the painting as a  set of sq patterns.
DQ disrupts your repertoire and the disruption may go three ways:
1. Stasis. This is basically saying nothing happens and you are left cold.  
SH: 'If it doesn't, that person may have no preference between the wall and the 
 painting...'
2. Chaos. Things go a bit haywire. I had an experience like this once in  the 
Liverpool Tate Modern gallery; i walked into a room filled with obscenely  
elongated Bronze figures about the height of people but only a few inches thick. 
 The facial expressions disturbed me so much i wanted to run out of the room 
at  first, but then i settled down and found them utterly fascinating.
3. Coherence. Your repertiore and the art meld. Those Bronze figures got to  
me/them/us like this. I can't tell you how good it was.
 
On another occasion i spent an afternoon wandering around the Walker art  
gallery in Liverpool and didn't find much of interest at all, until i came  
across a bleak dark painting of Liverpool docks from the turn of the 19th  
centrury; gas lights twinkled against dismal houses and cobbled streets: it blew  me 
away. I felt a shock go right through me. I cannot account for it.
One thing i can say is that painting did me allot of good. It made me feel  
great in spite of the apparent dismal nature of the view.
 
'I think that science generally agrees that there is something that has to  
enter into experiments other than the measuring instruments, and I think 
science  would agree that "Conceptually Unknown" is an acceptable name for it. What  
science might not agree on is that this Conceptually unknown is aesthetic. 
But  if the Conceptually Unknown were not aesthetic why should the scientific  
community be so attracted to it? If you think about it you will see that 
science  would lose all meaning without this attraction to the unknown. A good word 
for  the attraction is "curiosity." Without this curiosity there would never 
have  been any science. Try to imagine a scientist who has no curiosity 
whatsoever and  estimate what his output will be. 
This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually  Unknown is a point of connection 
between the sciences and the arts. What relates  science to the arts is that 
science explore the Conceptually Unknown in order to  develop a theory that will 
cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown.  The arts explore the 
Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns such  as music, 
literature, painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced  them. This 
description, I think, is the rational connection between science and  the arts. 
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance art was defined as  high quality 
endeavor. I have never found a need to add anything to that  definition.' 
(Subjects, Objects, Data and Values. P. 18-19.)
 
Re: Random noise. This is a fascinating notion to contemplate Steve if you  
will forgive me?
What IS random noise and what value does it have?
I am familiar with White and Pink noise and i'm not sure how random they  are?
White noise has been used to give kick to snare drums in  recording studios 
as recently as the mid-80's; a quick burst of white noise  simultaneous with 
and underneath a snare sounds pretty effective. (Donald  Fagen's, 'The Night 
Fly' album has blatant examples of this and i've noticed the  same blatant use on 
McCartney's, 'Pipes of peace' album - both recorded in the  mid 80's)
I mean, true randomness is chaotic isn't it? Or is it?
Surely random noise is precisely chaotic in structure - or lack of  structure?
I know white noise has been used as a torture tool - exposure to white  noise 
for extended periods of time can be hard to bare.
Chaos appears to do your head in large doses.
Mind you, staring at a blank wall may have a similar effect. Funny.
 
Yes, i think you are right, white noise, or random noise is the wall behind  
a work of music.
Love,
Mark