[DMB] The substance of the complaints against John's assertions with respect to intellectual values is that John can maintain his anti-intellectualism only by ignoring the distinction between the problem (SOM) and the solution (MOQ). John keeps treating intellectual values as they exist in the "problem space", as Arlo put it, rather than the "solution space". In other words, John can maintain his anti-intellectualism only by ignoring Pirsig's solution, namely the root expansion of rationality, the art of rationality.
[Arlo] That's how I see it too. By saying "I associate the romantic with art", he is also saying "I do not associate the classical [logical, rational] with art". This was precisely the problem that Pirsig was addressing in ZMM. This is precisely something that Pirsig was saying was WRONG. The solution offered by ZMM says that it is WRONG to associate the romantic with art, that it is WRONG to even be stuck in these two artificial 'modes', that Quality [art, high-quality endeavor] not just applied to both of these modes, but it eliminated their distinction! Had John said "some people out there still associate art with what Pirsig called the 'romantic mode of understanding'", I'd say, sure, yeah, I can see that. There are many people who think that logic is cold, artless, and value free, and many who think that "grooving" on something requires ignoring and demeaning the value of logic and intellect. Sure, the problem that Pirsig addressed in ZMM still exists. By these people a copy of ZMM, talk to them about this way of thinking about 'art' that unifies these two artificially divorced ways of thinking. But to say '***I***, John Carl, associate the romantic with art' is to move back before the solution Pirsig offered, to deny the solution (as DMB says). In fact, this statement could easily be attributed to John of ZMM, John Sutherland. John Sutherland certainly did associate the romantic with art, although lacking Pirsig's words he'd probably have said "art is separate from reason". And that was precisely the attitude that sparked Pirsig to write ZMM in the first place! And this brings me to a short response to Ian, that aligns here, so here is where I will put it. [Ian] Post-intellectual. Not non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, but the idea of intellectual but more so, more evolved, more progressive kind of intellectual. [Arlo] Ignoring whatever definitions and implications the term "post-intellectual" may have in the literature, applying this to Pirsig's ideas only works IF 'intellectual' is kept to mean "SOM". Because what "post-intellectual" is trying to point to here is "post-SOM". The problem with "post-intellectual" is that it traps "intellectual" in its pre-expanded, pre-ZMM, pre-MOQ meaning. See, there was "intellectual", and then there came ZMM and the MOQ, and now we are "post-intellectual". See how that works only if "intellectual" is cemented with its pre-Pirsig implications. Both of these, "I associate the romantic with art" and "post-intellectual", are built off a belief that intellect is cold, sterile, artless, value-free, 'objective'. And THAT was something that should've been solved with ZMM/MOQ. 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
