Hello dear MD
A short visit to deliver a message.
"Mlerner" said:
> I'm one of those who think Pirsig had it right in ZMM in that true
> quality is the unity of the classic and the romantic. I have bee
> interested in knowing whether this idea has been expressed in
> paintings or other art.
> My latest thought is that conflict between the classic and romantic
> quality is expressed in the art of Edward Hopper.
> Comments?
Edward Hopper. Good to see that someone knows him. Not that I
have regarded his work in the said context before, but now that you
mention it the romantic/classic split may well apply. Being an
artist/painter I was greatly impressed/influenced by Hopper back in
the sixties/seventies - still am in a way. Like my encounter with
Pirsig when his ZMM struck me as my own vague ideas eloquently
expressed, Hopper's pictures conveyed the same feeling. His
weren't mere renderings of land, sea, or city-scapes, but something
much more. The scenes of an empty street with a torn newspaper;
a gas station with a lone attendant, or a bar at night with a man
and a woman, they moved me beyond description: These were my
sentiments painted! Conflict between romantic and classic
perhaps, but the conflict redeemed I think. I often compared Hopper
to Van Gogh and still wonder if not Hopper was influenced by the
latter. Compare VG's "Night Cafe" (AKA "Starry Night") with various
Hoppers.
However, if you by saying that Pirsig "had it right in ZMM..." mean
that the classic/romantic is the metaphysical split rather than the
dynamic/static one, he explicitly says that it was a false start.
So much for Hopper, but when connected I can't but comment on
the current "atomic awareness" thread. I think most people get it
wrong because the Quality idea isn't properly recognized. The
somish approach is the one of an aware subject peering out on the
objective world from its lofty perch, and if this is re-introduced
WITHOUT RESERVATIONS into the MOQ it wrecks it.
The subject/object division (and all its tenets) is rejected and that
must have some profound effect on the aware/unaware pair
because it is one of the countless offshoots of the s/o root. And the
reason that the MOQ is so terribly hard to grasp is that a
metaphysics - currently the SOM - is like the fungus world, it
surfaces in single mushrooms, but the root permeates the whole
underground.
It's no great feat to disprove single subject-object statements, but
no sooner have we kicked a frail mushroom to dust (and spread
millions of spores) before a new one sprouts. From Bishop
Berkeley to Struan Hellier it's been the favourite pastime to show
that there is no SOM, yet it pops up in the next sentence. No, the
s/o can't be eradicated, but must find a place inside the STATIC
sequence of the MOQ.
Well, then what about awareness. When we wake up in the
morning don't we become aware? It is a fact that all creatures
sleep and must necessarily wake up to a reality different from
sleep, but I believe that most of you will deny them awareness and
say that it simply means that they wake up to their respective
biological realities ...and that's right, only that it goes for humans
too. We wake up to no God's view, but to human bio-reality ....first
sensing the bodily needs :-) and then weave out and in of the
various static levels.
No, there is no awareness in the somish meaning, not on the
inorganic nor on any other level, but there is VALUATION and the
value of (the difference between) what's subjective and what's
objective is the highest static level of the MOQ (Intellect) and one
that only human beings have attained (by way of the social level).
This is the only approach that can save the MOQ in my well-known
humble opinion.
In this view the SOM loses it's M and becomes a mere static level
of the MOQ, and as said about a metaphysics being an all-
pervading fungus, the MOQ takes over this role. It already have for
me, I am unable to return to the subject-object world however much
I try.
I very much sympathize with Marco's Q-prefix effort, I was a great
user of that method once, but am comfortable with the ordinary
terms because, as said the Q-fungus now pervades my ground and
the s/o terminology is simply seen as "Intellect".
I am also greatly impressed by the quality of the exchange and
hope I don't lower the standard by repeating my credo.
Best regards.
Bo
PS.
Marc Brookhuis wrote:
(in his "oorspronkelijk bericht")
> I’ve been away for a couple of months, so I missed most of the
> discussions on moq, but was able to read Lila’s Child on my journey.
> Has Lila’s Child been discussed on moq?
I hope I don't spoil Dan Glover's effort by revealing that it is soon to
be published as a printed book - perhaps with a commentary-like
preface by Pirsig. A guaranteed bestseller!!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
