At 12:41 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
[Marsha quotes Pirsig]
"Programs of a political nature are important
end products of social quality that can be
effective only if the underlying structure of social values is right." (ZMM)
[Arlo]
I think its more than just "programs of a
political nature" that are impacted by social
values. In ZMM, Pirsig juxtaposes this thought
with "programs of an economic nature" (in this
case, modes of production, labor).
"To speak of certain government and
establishment institutions as "the system" is to
speak correctly, since these organizations are
founded upon the same structural conceptual
relationships as a motorcycle. They are
sustained by structural relationships even when
they have lost all other meaning and purpose.
People arrive at a factory and perform a totally
meaningless task from eight to five without
question because the structure demands that it
be that way. There's no villain, no "mean guy"
who wants them to live meaningless lives, it's
just that the structure, the system demands it
and no one is willing to take on the formidable
task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against
a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle
because it is a system is to attack effects
rather than causes; and as long as the attack is
upon effects only, no change is possible. The
true system, the real system, is our present
construction of systematic thought itself,
rationality itself, and if a factory is torn
down but the rationality which produced it is
left standing, then that rationality will simply
produce another factory. If a revolution
destroys a systematic government, but the
systematic patterns of thought that produced
that government are left intact, then those
patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government." (ZMM)
He further describes the effect of this, a
general lack of "identity" in labor as follows.
"The creator of it feels no particular sense of
identity with it. The owner of it feels no
particular sense of identity with it. The user
of it feels no particular sense of identity with
it. Hence, by Phædrus' definition, it has no Quality." (ZMM)
He also talks about the other end of labor,
namely "consumption" and how this, too, is
effected by the general SOM pervading ALL forms
of this culture. "Along the streets that lead
away from the apartment he can never see
anything through the concrete and brick and neon
but he knows that buried within it are
grotesque, twisted souls forever trying the
manners that will convince themselves they
possess Quality, learning strange poses of style
and glamour vended by dream magazines and other
mass media, and paid for by the vendors of
substance. He thinks of them at night alone with
their advertised glamorous shoes and stockings
and underclothes off, staring through the sooty
windows at the grotesque shells revealed beyond
them, when the poses weaken and the truth creeps
in, the only truth that exists here, crying to
heaven, God, there is nothing here but dead neon and cement and brick." (ZMM)
Finally, I have to say one thing. I am always a
little taken aback when people here use the
descriptor "artist" as if it should/does refer
to some particular domain of human activity.
Isn't the entire point of Pirsig's Metaphysics
that "Art" is unjustly divorced from its
rightful role in ALL human activity? Isn't the
goal here to stop thinking of "art" as some
special form of human activity and see that ALL
forms of human activity are artful? Don't we
just further this unjust distinction every time we refer to "art" this way?
I agree with you. I paint.
For example, you asked "Do you think it is the
role of the artist to make culture
uncomfortable?". How is the role of the "artist"
different from the role of the "teacher" or
"craftsman" or "gardener" or "baseball player"?
I asked because of the Fischl interview, not
because that is what I thought. I paint.
Isn't the very problem here that teachers,
craftsman, gardeners and baseball players FORGOT
that they, too, are artists? That "art" is the
appearance of Quality revealed in ALL human
activity? ("Art is high-quality endeavor. That
is all that really needs to be said." (ZMM))
Sorry, but I agree.
In this light, there is no "role of the artist".
There is an intention to our activity, and
whether or not the product of our activity is
Quality (Art) depends on the manner we approach
said activity. If your goal is to convey as
message, perhaps the outcome is "art" or perhaps
it is not. If your goals is a rotisserie,
perhaps the outcome is "art" or it is not. If
your goal is to challenge social norms, perhaps
the outcome is "art" or perhaps it is not. You
are not an "artist" who challenges cultural
norms, you challenge cultural norms and strive
to do so revealing Quality, and if you do then your challenge is "art".
I strive for quality.
I don't see any disagreement here. Maybe we can disagree somewhere else.
Marsha
_____________
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
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/
