[MD] The Level of Art?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> Steve:
> The reason there can be no level of art is because the levels denote  
> types of patterns of value. Let's think about what "the code of art"  
> would be as a level. We would need to infer patterns for this  
> "dynamic morality" based on response to DQ. But DQ is "always new"  
> and "comes as a surprise" which suggests no patterns will be  
> forthcoming.

Good point. But Pirsig describes DQ as a process:

"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." 

This "process" looks like a pattern to me. But maybe that's because any 
description of DQ would necessarily result in a symbolic static pattern of 
words.

As an aside I can't help but think that if something can't be put into 
words, it's existence becomes a matter of faith. 

But, no need to go there. Like I said, your point is a good one. 

Regards,
Platt