[MD] The Level of Art?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,
>
>> 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.


Platt:
> 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.

Steve:
Some poetry, art, or music, the Tao Te Ching, etc.  might be examples  
of trying to intellectually articulate dynamic quality, but they are  
limited by intellect in the ability to do so. Articulations of DQ can  
try to point outside themselves but can only ever themselves be  
intellectual patterns because discerning patterns is intellectual  
activity. So talking about patterns and levels doesn't apply for  
evolution past the intellectual level.

This is how I see it anyway. I could be wrong.

Regards,
Steve