Hi Dmb and All > > Dan said: > > ...Motorcycle maintenance is an excellent analogy for this ever-evolving > intellectual journey we all are (hopefully) on. .... Faulty logic, > contradiction, and lack of intellectual coherence in this philosophy forum is > the same as trying to tune a motorcycle with a monkey wrench. It just doesn't > work. > > > Eddo objected: > > The problem in this analogy is that you compare anorganic quality patterns > "motorcycle maintanance" with social quality patterns "this forum". Inorganic > quality patterns obey the laws of nature and logic much more convincing than > the social patterns comming out of this forum which are much more dynamic. > The social quality patterns who survive are the intellectual quality patterns > which make common sense in the forum community. > > > > Dan replied: > ... I am not comparing inorganic patterns to social patterns. I am comparing > intellectual patterns to intellectual patterns. > > > > dmb says: > > Yes, the central metaphor in Pirsig's first book (motorcycle maintenance) is > supposed to be taken as a lesson in the art of rationality itself. To take > the bike as merely inorganic is to miss the point of this lesson. > > “That’s all the motorcycle is, a system of concepts worked out in steel. > There’s no part in it, no shape in it, that is not out of someone’s mind. > …I’ve noticed that people who have never worked with steel have trouble > seeing this – that the motorcycle is primarily a mental phenomenon. They > associate metal with given shapes – pipes, rods, girders, tools, parts – all > of them fixed and inviolable, and think of it as primarily physical. But a > person who does machining or foundry work or forge work or welding sees > ‘steel’ as having no shape at all. Steel can be any shape you want if you are > skilled enough, and any shape but the one you want if you are not [skilled > enough].” (ZAMM, 102-3) > > This metaphor is quite apt, I think, because the arrangement of concepts in > Pirsig's MOQ is very much like the arrangement of steel parts in the machine. > In both cases, getting the thing to work properly requires skill and patience > and a sense of the harmony that makes the whole thing fit together. > > "To say that they [motorcycle mechanics or philosophers or whatever] are not > artists is to misunderstand the nature of art. They have patience, care and > attentiveness to what they're doing, but more than this - there's a kind of > inner peace of mind that isn't contrived but results from a kind of harmony > with the work in which there is no leader and no follower... The kind of > 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. ...When one isn't > dominated by feelings of separateness from what he's working on, the 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." (ZAMM 296-7) > > > Ironically, this is exactly what Marsha refuses to care about; the proper > arrangement of concepts. This precision is what distinguishes a coherent MOQ > from a big pile of arbitrary nonsense. The utter shamelessness with which she > produces this constant stream of drivel is really quite disturbing. It almost > seems like confusion, discord and disharmony is her sole purpose in life. > It's like she wants this forum to be a failure, like she placed a million > dollar bet that she could break it beyond repair. > > > > Dan said to Eddo: > > The whole gist of Arlo's post was that we are here participating in an > intellectual discussion concerning the MOQ, not on top of a mountain > meditating or in a zen retreat hiding away from the world. I have no problem > understanding what is said here but that doesn't mean I agree with it. > > > > dmb says: > > Right, and Pirsig tells us in various ways that the artful mechanic (or > philosopher) that does not feel alienated from his work. Quite the opposite. > He's patient, careful, attentive, involved and feels a sense of identity with > the thing he's maintaining. If we compare Pirsig's characterization of the > artist with the attitude Marsha brings to the examination of the structure of > the MOQ, I think it's quite obvious that her apathetic carelessness and > general irresponsibility violates both the letter and the spirit of Pirsig's > work. It's about as far off the mark as one can be. > > "If you want to build a factory, or fix a motorcycle, or set a nation right > without getting stuck, then classical, structured, dualistic subject-object > knowledge, although necessary, isn’t enough. You have to have some feeling > for the quality of the work. You have to have a sense of what’s good. That is > what carries you forward. This sense isn’t just something you’re born with, > although you are born with it. It’s also something you can develop. It’s not > just ‘intuition,’ not just unexplainable ‘skill’ or ‘talent.’ It’s the direct > result of contact with basic reality, Quality, which dualistic reason has in > the past tended to conceal.” (ZAMM 284) > > > See, Pirsig is NOT saying that we should abandon classical, structured > knowledge, i.e. static patterns. He's saying that static knowledge is > NECESSARY but it's also insufficient. You gotta have that, but it's not > enough. The artful mechanic and the artful thinker also need to develop a > sense of Quality, a feeling for the work. You don't get anywhere by simply > going with your feelings. That was the big complaint about the Sutherlands > and the romantics of the 1960's in general. They felt alienated by > technology, by scientific rationality, by attitudes of objectivity and > consequently wanted nothing to do with it. They just wanted to run away from > it. That is Marsha's mistake too. How many times has she declared he lack of > caring or demonstrated her lack of involvement? I'd guess it's in the > hundreds and, given the context, this misbehavior is wildly inappropriate. > It's offensive and, what's worse, it makes no sense at all. > > >
Right David, and that is just what I wrote about in my book "Money and the art of losing control". Marsha read it early but she seems to not understand it at all. Sigh. J A > > > > > > 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
