dmb said:
...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 replied:
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.
John responded:
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.
dmb now says:
This is the same mistake, John. You're still treating intellect as if it were
the artless objective tool of SOM. You're still keeping intellect in the
problem space and otherwise pretending that there is no solution space. (Or,
like Ian, you're pretending that the solution was your idea instead of
Pirsig's!) Pirsig had already given the "art" label to rationality in ZAMM. The
basic idea is right there on the cover in the title of the book, wherein
motorcycle maintenance is an art. He calls it a "new spiritual rationality,"
"the art of rationality" and the "root expansion of rationality" and this is
achieved by putting Dynamic Quality at the center of those roots, not by
eliminating static quality or abandoning the demands of intellectual precision.
That's what Pirsig central metaphor is all about! We don't even have to wait
for Lila or the MOQ proper to see the solution space.
"A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason," Pirsig
says, "and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature
study of the art of rationality itself." (ZAMM 98)
The assertion that motorcycle maintenance can be an art form is a metaphor for
any human practice and more specifically Pirsig tells us that these repair
lessons are a "miniature study in the art of rationality". But being one with
the bike isn't just about inducing a groovy vibe or a holy mood. Art in this
Pirsigian sense also demands great precision and a certain kind of expertise or
mastery. This is just as true for engines as it is for ideas and either way, if
you're a careless hack or "if the fit is loose" for whatever reason, then
you're going to destroy the machine or destroy the concepts with which you're
working. "All you can do then is start walking."
"I always feel like I'm in church when I do this," Pirsig writes. "The gage is
some kind of religious icon and I'm performing a holy rite with it. It is a
member of a set called 'precision measuring instruments' which in a classic
sense has a profound meaning. In a motorcycle this precision isn’t maintained
for any romantic or perfectionist reasons. It’s simply that the enormous forces
of heat and explosive pressure inside this engine can only be controlled
through the kind of precision these instruments give. When each explosion takes
place it drives a connecting rod onto the crankshaft with a surface pressure of
many tons per square inch. If the fit of the rod to the crankshaft is precise
the explosion force will be transferred smoothly and the metal will be able to
stand it. But if the fit is loose by a distance of only a few thousandths of an
inch the force will be delivered suddenly, like a hammer blow, and the rod,
bearing and crankshaft surface will soon be pounded flat,.. it will soon get
louder and louder until the rod tears itself free, slams into the spinning
crankshaft and destroys the engine. Sometimes broken rods will pile right down
through the crankcase and dump all the oil onto the road. All you can do then
is start walking." (ZAMM 99-100)
In the next quote Pirsig is talking about painting, thinking and machine work
all at the same time so that we can see that every form of art makes the same
demands for quality. You can't be "a sloppy thinker six days a week" then what
is going to "sharp on the seventh"? Magic? Sheer will power? Love of the word
"Quality"? No, of course not. There are no "shortcuts to living right" and
there are no shortcuts to excellence in thought and speech. Sorry to break the
bad news, but this form of art is unavailable to lazy, apathetic people. It
just doesn't work like that.
“You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It’s easy. Make yourself
perfect and then just paint naturally. That’s the way all the experts do it.
The making of a painting or the fixing of a motorcycle isn’t separate from the
rest of your existence. If you’re a sloppy thinker six days of the week you
aren’t working on your machine, what trap avoidances, what gimmicks, can make
you all of a sudden sharp on the seventh? It all goes together.But if you’re a
sloppy thinker six days a week and you really try to be sharp on the seventh,
then maybe the next six days aren’t going to be quite as sloppy as the
preceding six. What I’m trying to come up with on these gumption traps I guess,
is shortcuts to living right.The real cycle you’re working on is a cycle called
yourself. The machine that appears to be "out there" and the person that
appears to be "in here" are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality
or fall away from Quality together.” (ZAMM 325)
More specifically, Pirsig's central metaphor is used to examine the difference
between scientific objectivity and a more artful way of thinking. One of the
central aims of his first book is root out this "genetic defect" known as
subject-object dualism and replace it with a "new spiritual rationality".
Toward this end, he uses the motorcycle metaphor to examine the nature of
concepts and ideas and thinking as such. For example, the following passage
helps to explain what it means to say that the motorcycle isn't really "out
there", as opposed to the ideas about it which are supposedly "in here". It
also beautifully illustrates the plasticity of concepts themselves:
“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. …Iv'e
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. Shapes, like this tappet, are
what you arrive at, what you give to the steel. Steel has no more shape than
this old pile of dirt on the engine here. These shapes are all out of someone's
mind. That's important to see. The Steel? Hell, even the steel is out of
someone's mind. There's no steel in nature. Anyone from the Bronze Age could
have told you that. All nature has is a potential for steel. There's nothing
else there. But what's 'potential'? That's also in someone's mind! . . .
Ghosts.” (ZAMM, 102-3)
Steel has no shape at all or rather it can be any shape you want. If you know
what you're doing, you can even use an old beer can as a handlebar shim, a
creative solution that romantic John couldn't accept. And yet it's still true
that if the fit on some parts "is loose by a distance of only a few thousandths
of an inch" your engine will tear itself apart and "all you can do then is
start walking." (ZAMM, 99-100) All this talk about shapeless steel serves to
illustrate the difference between the artful mechanic and the mechanic with an
objective attitude. Just as most people associate metal with given shapes, all
of them fixed and inviolable, so it is with objective philosophers and their
view of reality. They associate reality with given shapes - sun, earth, oceans,
rocks, and stars - all of them fixed and inviolable, and think of it as
primarily physical. Pirsig turns this objectivity on its head in the same way
that he turns steel into putty and plastic. Despite this rejection of
objectivity in favor of a more artful approach, the need for precision remains
- and this is just as true for steel as it is for concepts.
"Precision instruments are designed to achieve an idea, dimensional precision,
whose perfection is impossible. There is no perfectly shaped part of the
motorcycle and never will be, but when you come as close as these instruments
take you, remarkable things happen, and you go flying across the countryside
under a power that would be called magic if it were not so completely rational
in every way. It’s the understanding of this rational intellectual idea that’s
fundamental. John looks at the motorcycle and he sees steel in various shapes
and has negative feelings about these steel shapes and turns off the whole
thing. I look at the shapes of the steel now and I see ideas. He thinks I’m
working on parts. I‘m working on concepts." (ZAMM, 100)
…Which bring us to his main thesis: Quality is the source and substance of
everything. In the same way that all the motorcycle parts are out of someone's
mind, so it is with "reality" as we know it. Every last bit of it is invented,
he says. In the same way as the steel and concepts, this reality is any shape
you want it to be and yet without some precision the whole thing will tear
itself apart.
"Reality isn't static anymore. It's not a set of ideas you have to either fight
or resign yourself to. ..With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is,
in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. ...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. ..It's not just 'intuition', not just an 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)
My point here - as is so often the case - is simply to say that the MOQ cannot
rightly be interpreted as anti-intellectual. Knowledge and skill are still
essential features of the "arts" he's talking about.
Anti-intellectualism is rampant in the American culture and is especially
virulent among right-wing partisans. And this is consistent with Pirsig's
descriptions of the social-intellectual conflict of the 20th century. Print
media like National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal
are constantly bashing Universities, College professors and other kinds of
intellectuals, for example. Also, I use google alerts to keep an eye on William
James and John Dewey and somebody on the right is hating on them almost every
day, even though they're both dead. And so, John, your sour attitude toward
academia is a very well-worn path. You're just following in the footsteps of a
thousand other partisan hacks, from Jonah Goldberg to Rush Limbaugh. It's a
very old and cliched attitude, one shared by some truly awful people, some of
the worst people in world history. There is an overwhelming stench of evil
about this and it blows my mind that you can't smell it.
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
