[MD] The "code of Art" is not a level

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Steve]
[The "code of Art"] is the resolution of conflicts between dynamic 
quality and all static patterns. It is described not so much in terms 
of principles of how we should proceed as with the other codes but is 
instead described using such concepts as static latching, progress, 
and degeneracy--things we can only talk about after the fact, ideas 
that are not useful as a code to guide behavior like other moral codes.

[Arlo]
"Art" itself is completely redefined (in my read) in Pirsig's 
writing, or rather "rescued". I certainly don't see "Art" as a 
"level", but as you suggest (if I understand) as a relational between 
human activity and human expression. Motorcycle maintenance is an 
"art" when the relational flow between the "cycle" and the "mechanic" 
dissolves into an expression that reveals the 
Godhead/Buddha/Tao/Quality. As such I don't see "art" as "objects" 
nor as restricted domains of human activity (painting, dancing, 
writing, etc.). "Art" is living, with an eye towards the 
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. There is an artful way to play 
football, to cook burgers on the grill, to sing, to dance, to install 
plumbing, etc.

But your point is well taken.