dmb, I do not disagree with your reading of ZMM and the examples you offer. But the MoQ in LILA has gone beyond ZMM, and it offers a hierarchical structure with Intellectual patterns of value on the top level. You've got here a far more complicated theory. Static patterns of value were not even considered in ZMM. I do not think your examples address the MoQ's intellectual static patterns of value.
Marsha On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > A person wouldn't have to read much more than the title of ZAMM to notice > that bike repair is Pirsig's central metaphor. There is a moment in the book > wherein a torn slot on the head of a screw becomes the center of that central > metaphor. The function of that particular screw is to keep the engine's cover > plate in place until you need to get inside the engine for repairs. Without > that screw, you're totally screwed. And if the slot is torn, the screw won't > turn, which means the cover plate can't removed, which means you're stuck. No > repairs can even begin until that tiny little problem is solved. All of a > sudden, Pirsig says, that little slot becomes the most important thing in the > world. It stops the whole show. As I read it, SOM is that torn slot. Until > that is taken care of, the repairman can't even get started. In other words, > the solution offered by the MOQ begins only after addressing that stuck > screw, only after rejecting the "dualistic reason" that has turned "the wo rl > d into a stylized garbage dump". > > "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. ...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 real reunification of art and technology is really > long overdue." > > "I think that when this concept of peace of mind is introduced and made > central to the act of technical work, a fusion of classic and romantic > quality can take place at a basic level within a practical working context. > I've said you can actually *see* this fusion in skilled mechanics and > machinists of a certain sort, and you can see it in the work they do. To say > that they are not artists is to misunderstand the nature of art. ... The > mechanic I'm talking about doesn't make this separation. One says of him > that he is "interested" in what he's doing, that he's "involved" in his work. > What produces this involvement is, at the cutting edge of consciousness, an > absence of any sense of separateness of subject and object. "Being with it," > "being a natural," "taking hold" - there are a lot of idiomatic expressions > for what I mean by this absence of subject-object duality, because what I > mean is so well understood as folklore, common sense, the everyday > understanding of the sh op > . But in scientific parlance the words for this absence of subject-object > duality are scarce because scientific minds have shut themselves off from > consciousness of this kind of understanding in the assumption of the formal > dualistic scientific outlook." > > dmb says: > This is what is means to "care" about what you're doing. Pirsig is not > talking about love and affection or anything sweetly sentimental. This type > of Zen mechanic is deeply engaged in his work such that the "duality of self > and object doesn't dominate [his] consciousness". "When one isn't dominated > by feelings of separateness from what he's working on", he says, "then one > can be said to 'care' about what he's doing. That is what caring really is, > a feeling of identification with what one's doing. When one has this feeling > then he also sees the inverse side of caring, Quality itself." And of course > this is just as true for any other task, including philosophical tasks. The > first thing to do is get rid of that damaged screw, to get rid of the > metaphysical assumptions that stop us "taking hold" or "being with it". > > This grooving mechanic doesn't get to ignore the demands of all those > precision parts. Caring is going to include a respect for their purpose and > function of each part as well as it's relation to all the other parts. The > classical understanding is very much a part of what it means to have a feel > for the work. In other words, rejecting SOM is not at all the same as > rejecting rationality or conceptual understandings. It's just that we change > our relationship to those intellectual quality patterns. We are not longer > separate from them. They are not external realities but human creations that > help to make us what we are. Even that screw is a work of art, not the > starting point of reality, and if that creation no longer serves our purposes > we are allowed to drill it out and get a new one. > > And that's why it is so objectionable to equate intellect with SOM. It would > prevent Pirsig's repair job from going forward. That equation says that > getting unstuck is impossible. It says the cover plate will never come off > again, which means the bike will never be repaired or ridden again. It's says > we can't care and intellect itself is condemned to be forever flawed. > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
