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

[John Carl]

Art and Intellect reside together at the 4th level - the romantic/classic
split lives!
 Subject Object Reasoning  is an ARTform, one of many ...




On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [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.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>