[MD] Uncertainty

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Dave,

IMO your striving for higher architectural quality (or any other high 
quality endeavor) is what Pirsig meant by a code of art. I don't think he 
meant it as a a static pattern like a universal criteria for good art or 
something like that. Instead I see the code as adopting a lifelong attitude 
of doing well. I recall not long ago being called upon to judge some 
students' papers. One them was signed, "Beautifully done by ______"  If 
we all were to honestly sign our work that way, Pirsig's code of art would 
be fulfilled.       

But, I could be wrong.

Regards,
Platt


On 9 Sep 2009 at 17:28, David Thomas wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 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/