[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Horse,
Thanks for your response. I agree that the MOQ isn't clear about either the 
meaning of art or whether or not we can consider it to be a level of its own. 
Certainly much of modern abstract painting art is anti-intellectual in that 
rejects portraying everyday "objective" reality. Given the "anti" nature of 
higher levels toward lower, this would put art a level above the intellectual 
level. But "art" itself is such an abstract term that it's meaning varies all 
of the lot, like "justice" and "freedom." In fact, "Quality" suffers from the 
same lack of preciseness. Pirsig illustrated the stark value differences 
between individuals in his three main characters,  Phaedrus, Rigel and Lila. In 
the end it was John Wooden Leg who summed up the MOQ's "weltanschauung"
in four words, "That's a good dog." But, your good dog is probably different 
than my good dog. One's individual history of experience, perception and 
thought seems determinant of quality, making a metaphysics of it which strives 
for universality somewhat arbitrary. 

Anyway, you've given me something to think about. For that, thanks.

Regards,
Platt 


Hi Platt

On 07/05/2010 23:46, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> I think reality can be known without concepts -- the hot stove example -- a pre-
> intellectual understanding of the Quality reality. To rationally communicate
> that understanding to somebody else, however, requires we use a "menu" of
> static intellectual patterns consisting of subjects and objects, the
> fundamental nature of language.
>    

Music and art are also ways of communicating what we experience 
(reality). Art also relates to intellect without necessarily being 
subject or object or even rational.

> But, that brings up a question I've been wondering about. Is poetry (metaphor)
> within the intellectual level? Or is it more within the code of art? Or is it a
> bridge between the two, like the link between art and science at the cutting
> edge of the unknown?
>
> Would appreciate your thoughts.
>    

Personally I don't think that Pirsig was particularly clear about the 
"Code of Art" that's mentioned in Lila. The way I see his statement 
about the code of art in the passage where it appears is that he was 
describing relationships between the levels that establish dominance of 
the higher level over the lower - i.e. links between the levels. As he 
also stated that there were only 4 levels of static patterns and DQ I've 
always thought of the code of art as the relationship between intellect 
and DQ in terms of the way artists create their art. There is an element 
of Intellect involved as I discussed in an earlier post.
I think poetry and all other artistic activities require intellect as 
part of their creation - I can't think of any way that it couldn't be 
involved but that it isn't necessarily a major part of the whole process 
and experience. Not being in any way familiar with writing poetry I 
can't say with any certainty, but similarly with other art forms, the 
poet isn't just scribbling down words - he's looking at the way they 
scan and how he feels about the mood he's creating and a whole bunch of 
other things.
As I said above, I don't think it would be possible to create art 
without intellect and similarly intellect is vital to appreciating art - 
if you don't understand or can't interpret metaphor or other aspects of 
poetry how would you fully appreciate a poem.
So, no, I don't think that poetry is entirely within the intellectual 
level but I do think that intellect is involved and not necessarily in 
terms of subject or object. The degree to which intellect is involved 
will also vary from one artistic experience to another.