Arlo,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > [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. Jc: Well actually, Arlo. I've had a problem with the 4th level for some time because it's labeled "intellectual" and imho, it ought to be labeled "artistic" or something similar because I see intellect as a species of art. I've argued this for years. So I'd be fine with art and intellect on a continuum, with intellect at the static end and art at the dynamic. So, as I stated, the distinction is valuable but the 4th level encompasses both artful intellect and intellectual art. Arlo: > 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! > Jc: Can you provide me a quote for that assertion? Eliminating distinctions is a dangerous game. The less you distinctify, the less you know. Arlo: > 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! > > Jc: That the divide had become problematically absolute, I agree. And ZAMM makes this needed correction, I agree. But while it's tremendously helpful to de-absolutize the distinction between Art and Classical Intellect, (and the self/other) it's tremendously unhelpful to completely eliminate the distinction. You don't want motorcycle maintainers to creatively form engine parts because it feels good, and you don't want art that's been produced by copying. John 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
