Arlo:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:11 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > [JC earlier] > I associate the romantic with art." > > [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. > > [JC to Ant] > ... don't accuse me of anti-intellectualism just because I follow Pirsig's > teaching in ZAMM. > > [Arlo] > There is a HUGE disconnect here, and its more than a little deflating to > have to even point it out. You DO NOT follow Pirsig's teachings in ZMM if > you associate the romantic with art. Jc: I associate the romantic with the right hemisphere of the brain, which is holistic and relational and creative. Some people are more right-brain oriented and some left. I don't believe in an absolute division, and the big problem that Pirsig addresses in ZAMM is the academic and social separation between the two. He urges art that makes sense, and science that values beauty. I don't know where you get the idea that he urged the complete eradication of all distinction between art and technique. I speak of "technique" in Ellul's French pronunciation and meaning - not craftsmanship, but industrialized, imitative, copying. To my mind, eradicating the distinction implies "intellect uber alles" A sort of victory for technique, for classical intellect in owning all the space. Perhaps I am wrong, and this is exactly what all you who proclaim this "MOQ" of yours, SHOULD be, in which case I metaphorically spew you from my lips and fight you to the end. But I don't think Pirsig meant to eliminate art, or intellect, but to get them back together and get along with one another. Arlo: > The entire point of ZMM was to present the classic/romantic schism as a > PROBLEM. Pirsig's self-stated goal was to show that using "this knife > creatively and effectively can result in solutions to the classic and > romantic split." (ZMM) And, "Phædrus' resolution of the entire problem of > classic and romantic understanding occurred at first in this high country > of the mind..." (ZMM) > > Jc: I will use this opportunity to make another point- eliminating the absolute split, is not the same as obviating all conceptualization. People who think the self doesn't exist, because the divide between self and reality is relativistic and flowing. Art as a way of patterning, flows into intellect like a yin into the yang and there's always a bit of the opposite, embedded in the other. Therefore don't objectify harshly and think you've got a handle on the way things actually (objectively) are. I know this takes some of the fun out of arguing, but you can still have good discussions. Now where were we? Arlo: > "And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a > classic culture and a romantic counterculture...two worlds growingly > alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will > always be this way, a house divided against itself." (ZMM) > > "The answer is Phædrus' contention that classic understanding should not > be overlaid with romantic prettiness; classic and romantic understanding > should be united at a basic level." (ZMM) > > "I think that the referent of a term that can split a world into hip and > square, classic and romantic, technological and humanistic, is an entity > that can unite a world already split along these lines into one." (ZMM) > > Jc: Again, my point exactly. Uniting does not mean erasing individual differences. Any happily married couple will tell you this. It's when each side absolutely hates the other and can't stand differences - and didn't all this evolve from the schools of analytic philosophy that Pirsig was reacting against? The MoQ CAN stand differences because even difference is relativistically patterned and shares some common frequencies. Arlo: > "Actually a root word of technology, techne, originally meant "art." The > ancient Greeks never separated art from manufacture in their minds, and so > never developed separate words for them." (ZMM) > > Jc: Yes, but in the end, that technne has evolved into something far different from art. Unless you want to say that global-corporate economic control is an art. Which I don't. Maybe an evil art, I dunno. Arlo: > "So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem > isn't that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of > rationality so that it's capable of coming up with a solution." (ZMM) > > By 'associating the romantic with art', your simply denying that Pirsig > offered a solution, indeed, you're denying there's a problem! Jc: Well I think you misunderstood me. It's easy enough to do, when all you have is my quickly tapped out replies but the nice thing is, we can always go back and clarify, right Arlo? So are we clear now? I agree with Pirsig, I just don't think he means what you have concluded. Arlo: > You had asked me a for a quote to back-up my assertion that Pirsig's > solution eliminates this distinction, above are several. In Pirsig's > solution-space, the classical and the romantic modes are united. Indeed, as > should be obvious, the very distinction in the first place was the PROBLEM. > > Jc: Since the distinction is biologically based on our brains and chemistry, I don't know how you can say its wrong. Absolutizing the distinction is something done by SOM, and the MoQ overthrows that problem but it doesn't obviate the empirical difference between artistic thinking and logical thinking. That would be crazy. > [JC] > So I'd be fine with art and intellect on a continuum, with intellect at > the static end and art at the dynamic. > > [Arlo] > I'm not even sure how to frame a response to this, so I'll go back to ZMM > and start with a simple substitution. For Pirsig, "Art is high-quality > endeavor." (ZMM) If you "follow Pirsig's teaching in ZAMM", this > substitution should be flawless. Jc: Ok, then techne is low-quality endeavor? When we get our logical equations all figured to a mathematical T=ProfiT, and chinese children and and prisoners supply all the things we need as dictated by a info-media industry, we might have very intellectual and intelligently contrived powers, but it seems like a low-quality endeavor to me. But some lone individual, in his apartment and frustrated with the world, putting his thoughts about social problems, into symbolic form on canvas or paper, is driven by an urge that we know as "art". If you're talking about some "solution space" that OUGHT to be, then why not go all the way and dream up heaven? We live in one space, the world, and it needs solutions, not pie-in-the-sky fantasies. And the solution is simple, it's just looking inside and asking, "is what I am doing good?" You do that enough and you start to get better. The whole world starts to follow your example and the world gets better. Then you can talk to me about "solution space". Arlo: > Instead, we get "I'd be fine with high-quality endeavor and intellect on a > continuum, with intellect at the static end and high-quality endeavor at > the dynamic." Certainly there are high-quality intellectual endeavors. > What's apparent here is that you continue to use 'art' in its old > 'romantic' distinction, you're back in the problem-space of ZMM and trying > to criticize LILA on the basis that Pirsig's classic/romantic distinction > is itself the solution, but also you appear to be confused in trying to map > romantic/art/DQ and classic/intellect/SQ. > > Jc: Don't forget the human brain. I'm also mapping it on the physiological structure of our thinking machines. When I map, I go all the way down. Well not all the way. I'm stopping at the biological. Arlo: > "But the fact that Quality was the best way of uniting the two was no > guarantee that the reverse was true - that the classic-romantic split was > the best way of dividing Quality. It wasn't." (LILA) > > Jc: No, but the classic -romantic is the best way of dividing human conceptionalization. People in fact do, conceptualize in different ways. Here... Let me draw you a picture... See? > [JC] > 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. > > [Arlo] > Which is what you HAD in the problem-space of ZMM. It was a > misunderstanding of Quality that led to the misunderstood way you speak > here. Of COURSE, creatively forming engine parts feels good, when those > parts are produced with a united appreciation of 'romantic' and 'classical' > thought. And you're use of "art" is so limited here to refer almost > exclusively to "artifacts". I am certainly grateful that my artfully > constructed motorcycle 'copied' well-functioning design principles. In > LILA, with the shift to 'static' and 'dynamic', we see that there is value > to both 'copying' (preserving well-formed patterns) and 'creating' > (pursuing even better patterns). > > I'll end here simply getting back to what I think is a critical comment in > ZMM: "Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of man." (ZMM) > > Jc: I agree, but by your argument, "art" doesn't exist because to distinctify it is to obviate it. At least that's what you've been saying to me. Art is the God to all works of man, because art = creativity and all men's gods are called "Creator". But the MoQ points to a deeper truth, that God isn't exactly a Creator so much as God is Creativity. But what MD says is "don't be TOO creative now - ya gotta stick to our format" ptui. But go ahead, Arlo, argue some more with me. I always like your arguments. They're pretty good, tho not deeply thought out. Yours, 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
