Hi all To DMB and Arlo: I agree with you both to the full extend that the art of being a good mechanic is more than just putting parts together.
What i wanted to point out in imho is that the relationship of the mechanic to a motorcycle is less dynamic than the relationship of the philosopher to this forum. Eddo: In my opinion are intellectual patterns concerning motorcycle maintanance less dynamic compared to the intellectual patterns concerning the coherence of this phylosophy forum. To backup the intellectual quality patterns of motorcycle maintanance there is a rigourous body of static emperic science. To find coherence in this phylosophical forum we can only rely on our own personal intellectual patterns and compare those to the ones of our fellow forum members. We can create common sense by trying to find out what is being valued by the whole forum. In other words. It has no emperical basis, only a social consensus basis. The only emperical basis for the MOQ phylosophy is the populairity of the novels of RMP which proves that his ideas have become a (smal)part of global culture which is in itself a consensus basis. Kind regards Eddo 2013/7/30 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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
