[MD] Uncertainty

[David Thomas]

On 9/9/09 11:13 AM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andre:
> Long, long ago, in a momentary lapse of reason, I was able to half
> understandingly follow Bodvar and make the suggestion (which was a sort of a
> epiphany for me) that the inevitable concluding answer was the
 
Code of Art

> (the 'level'...rather the 'code' above the intellectual level) Bodvar
> transmitted :'Houston, Houston we have a breakthrough' (do you remember
> Bodvar?)
> Thinking about it ( which is probably the problem... I started to have
> mis-givings)...with what Pirsig says, Ant says, dmb says...but the SOL does
> make sense. The only thing I still have difficulty with is exactly what you
> ask Ian: FROM  WHERE DOES BODVAR ARGUE HIS POINT? Is it the intellectual
> level? If so, which 'part'? Above?

Damn, I feel like a one armed paper hanger. Good thing it is raining.

"Code of Art" was another one of those phases that got my blood boiling
during my review of last few months' threads.

Since art is part of my "substantive field", (learned that from the ZMM
"chairman") as in, "The ART and science of building" when I first read this
years ago I got that warm and fuzzy feeling. I, little old me, am involved
in the penultimate, goodest, most dynamic activity in all of reality. How
cool is that. After I cooled down a bit and started to search around both in
ZMM and Lila for any expansion or clarification of this statement there was
little or nothing to illuminate or substantiate this claim. Now since my
primary attraction to the MoQ was the potential application or understanding
of Quality in relation to architecture I found this extremely frustrating.
Still do, up to a point. Realize, I'm not talking about the MoQ concerning
the appreciation of art, I'm talking how it might improve doing it. Improve
our actual built world.

But over the years I have realized maybe it would be better if everybody
just forgot he said this. Probably one of his self proclaimed biases for the
Dynamic.  I'm not sure which would be worse for the whole MoQ theory and
reality in general,than having a code of art (and artists) at the top of
heap trying to dominant the lower levels or a one of a kind dynamic "pattern
or code" floating around in the Dynamic soup outside the realm of human
SPOVs all together.

The artifacts called "art" show it has been around for at least 30,000 years
but if you add in music, dance, tattooing, body painting and decoration of
organic tools and shelters that have disappeared it is surely much, much
older. I think we can agree that it is a purely human endeavor. So the
earliest it could have arrived on the scene was with the emergence of
biological humans. When did that it emerge time wise? I don't think we'll
ever really know for sure.

So, if "Art" per se emerges on sometime during the biological or social eras
(let's guess 500,000 years ago) prior to the evolution of the intellectual
level (say 10,000 years ago) and then sometime later the "code of art" level
evolved (or maybe even will evolve) out the intellectual level, Huh? We have
those patterns of value, quality, called "Art" thousands of year before the
level dealing with it appears. Logic doesn't work for me.

Human artifacts evolve in parallel and slightly behind humans themselves.
And where artifacts, art included, are concerned IMHO, "Experience leads to
Thoughts leads to modifying existing things into new things" with as much
dynamic quality thrown in as you can handle. Art is not the leading
indicator of human evolution but a trailing one. But to suggest that "true"
and "good" art emerges from Dynamic Quality whole cloth above and beyond the
physical, biological, social, or intellectual SPOVs of humans just doesn't
make sense to me. 

To put it in another way I believe that intellectual values,social values
and maybe even biological values will have to evolve to higher levels of
good prior to seeing any great improvement in the art of rebuilding our
cities, towns, or countries. I hold out hope for the MoQ, but not much in my
life time.

But I could be wrong. And I am sure it will be pointed out.

Dave