Thanks Dave, It was the use of the word equalizing that threw me ... I see your intent now ... to contrast it with Pirsig's intent in the word "unify".
If I may rephrase in my own words ... You say "uniting" in relation to the MoQish view because it kinda "integrates" these art, science & philosophy domains, without devaluing or undermining any of them - the sum is greater than the parts. You say "equalizing" in relation to a view that sees it as kinda "flattening" all three to some common "intersubjective" concensus - the sum risks being a lowest common denominator of the parts - shot through the head. I'm reminded of this from Mary Parker-Follett "There are three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise,and integration. By domination only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; by integration we find a way by which both sides may get what they wish" Regards Ian On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:01 PM, david buchanan<[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said to Dave: > - be interesting if you could unpick that distinction between uniting and > equalizing those three domains? > > dmb says: > > As far as equalization goes (making art and science equal by shooting them > both in the head), the specific example of postmodern relativism I would > point to is Rorty's "Texts and Lumps". Or is it "Lumps and Texts"? There, he > says poets shouldn't even try to be like physicists. If anything, it's the > other way around because truth is just a matter of getting your peers to > agree. Rorty's notion of intersubjective agreement more or less says that the > truth is determined by a consensus of the experts, which I would characterize > as a kind of educated, pro-status quo relativism. But in the MOQ art and > science are united by way of Quality, the primary empirical reality. In the > MOQ, there is a kind of empirical realism that keeps us honest and it's > nature that tells us when our ideas are no good, not experts. In the MOQ, the > intersubjective agreement that Rorty places at the center of things is based > on Quality. There is a key passage in chapter 25 of ZAMM about this > unification of art and science through Quality. > > "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even > perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is > no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness > of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object > are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it's > also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it," > "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity. It is this > identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it > is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. 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. > That wall in Korea that Phædrus saw was an act of technology. It was > beautiful, but not because of any masterful intellectual planning or any > scientific supervision of the job, or any added expenditures to "stylize" it. > It was beautiful because the people who worked on it had a way of looking at > things that made them do it right unselfconsciously. They didn't separate > themselves from the work in such a way as to do it wrong. There is the center > of the whole solution. > The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is > not to run away from technology. That's impossible. The way to resolve the > conflict is to break down the barriers of dualistic thought that prevent a > real understanding of what technology is ... not an exploitation of nature, > but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that > transcends both. When this transcendence occurs in such events as the first > airplane flight across the ocean or the first footstep on the moon, a kind of > public recognition of the transcendent nature of technology occurs. But this > transcendence should also occur at the individual level, on a personal basis, > in one's own life, in a less dramatic way. > The walls of the canyon here are completely vertical now. In many places room > for the road had to be blasted out of it. No alternate routes here. Just > whichever way the river goes. It may be just my imagination, but it seems the > river's already smaller than it was an hour ago. > Such personal transcendence of conflicts with technology doesn't have to > involve motorcycles, of course. It can be at a level as simple as sharpening > a kitchen knife or sewing a dress or mending a broken chair. The underlying > problems are the same. In each case there's a beautiful way of doing it and > an ugly way of doing it, and in arriving at the high-quality, beautiful way > of doing it, both an ability to see what "looks good" and an ability to > understand the underlying methods to arrive at that "good" are needed. Both > classic and romantic understandings of Quality must be combined." > ... > "The answer is Phaedrus' contention that classic understanding should not be > OVERLAID with romantic prettiness: classic and romantic understanding should > be united at a basic level. In the past our common universe of reason has > been in the process of escaping, rejecting the romantic, irrational world of > prehistoric man. It's been necessary since before the time of Socrates to > reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an > understanding of nature's order which was as yet unknown. Now it's time to > further an understanding of nature's order by reassimilating those passions > which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective > domain of man's consciousness are a part of nature's order too. The central > part. > At present we're snowed under with an irrational expansion of blind > dat-gathering in the sciences because there's no rational format for an > understanding of scientific creativity. At present we are also snowed under > with a lot of stylishness in the arts - thin art - because there's very > little assimilation or extension into underlying form. We have artists with > no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both > with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it > is ghastly. The time for a real unification of art and technology is really > long overdue." (p. 294) > > ..."Peace of mind isn't as all superficial to technical work. It's the whole > thing. ...The reason for this is that peace of mind is a prerequisite for a > perception of that Quality which is beyond romantic Quality and classic > Quality and which unites the two, and which must accompany the work as it > proceeds. The way to see what looks good and understand the reasons it looks > good, and TO BE AT ONE WITH THIS GOODNESS as the work proceeds, is to > cultivate an inner quietness, a peace of mind so that goodness can shine > through." > > Emphasis is Pirsig's in the original. > > 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/
