[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Dan,

Yes, I agree. But, even though Beauty lies beyond subject and object, we use 
subject-object assumptions to think about and discuss it anyway. I've tried to 
read and comprehend academic aesthetics, but shortly give up. It's all BS as 
far as I'm concerned. I'm a romantic, as expressed in this poem:

"WHEN I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts, the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the learned astronomer where he lectured with much 
applause in the lecture room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars." -- Walt Whitman

What kept me glued to Pirsig's words was my feeling that between the lines he 
was like a Walt Whitman, affirming a romantic rather than a materialist  
worldview -- a view I've held for many years. 

In ZAMM, Pirsig divided experience into Classic and Romantic. I think he 
Lila he came down on the Romantic side. Maybe not, but at least John Wooden 
Leg's dog was a romantic "good dog," not a classic poodle or bassett hound. 

Thanks for the question.   

Best,
Platt

On 8 Nov 2010 at 16:12, Dan Glover wrote:

Hello everyone

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark, All
>
> Dynamic Quality isn't concept free. Once you name something, it becomes a
> concept. But it's a concept like "ineffable" is a concept -- pointing to
> something that cannot be defined. And that leaves intellect impotent. Intellect
> can only deal with defined terms. Pirsig admitted as much. But, he said go
> ahead anyway: "Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics
> is a part of life." (Lila, 5)  So, yes. Even though we can't think about DQ, go
> ahead and think about it - another paradox illustrating critical thinking's
> feet of clay.

Hi Platt

Yes, but he said that Dynamic Quality cannot be defined by what it is,
only by what it is not. It is like trying to define beauty, Is it in
the object? No, otherwise everyone would agree on what is beautiful.
Is it in the subject? No, otherwise no one would agree on what is
beautiful. Beauty lies beyond both subect and object, in that Dynamic
realm we might call the code of art. Don't you think so too?

Dan