Hi Arlo,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > [JC] > But go ahead, Arlo, argue some more with me. I always like your > arguments. They're pretty good, tho not deeply thought out. > > [Arlo] > Ah, rhetoric. It's amazing how dismissive rhetoric can conceal sloppy > thinking, isn't it? Jc: Ok, I went overboard a bit, I admit. Sometimes I just get in a mood, but you've always been a fair-minded and even-handed debater, Arlo, and I appreciate that. Arlo: > You can jump around and try to skirt whatever I've said, its fine, I'm not > so much arguing with you as arguing AT you, to be honest. I've recognized > long ago the difference between showing somebody something, and showing > others something that somebody doesn't understand. > > Jc: We do need to engage each other textually and keep to the point. Other stuff might be entertaining, but if it doesn't sincerely attempt truth, what good is it? So with a fresh perspective and the willingness to admit we're all fallible, let's get it on. Arlo: > In any event, you mentioned this 'right/left brain' thing now, and, maybe > if you spent more time in the academy you'd realize this is really not > taken seriously much anymore. Here's a short pop article you might > understand about this: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/right-brain-left-brain-debunked_n_3762322.html. > Jc: that darned academy. Always changing the intellectual fashions. It's like scientific research which says "coffee is bad for you" and then "NO, coffee is good for you" and then again, "NO, coffee is bad for you". My arguments were influenced a lot by a thread by David Thomas, some time back and a book that came out a year or so ago, I could look it up and then my experts would counter your experts and then where would we be? Arlo: > So while we'll likely use in the vernacular "right-brained" and > "left-brained" for a while, in reality these don't map to the categories > you're still stuck in (Pirsig's pre-solution classical/romantic schism). > > Jc: The thing is, Arlo, there are people who are like DeWeese, befuddled by electricity and there are people ike Phaedrus, technical to a fault but ignorant of their own aesthetic gifts. So, Yeah, I'd say we're "stuck" with this distinction, and I still don't understand why that has to be a bad thing. As long as people realize that there are different kinds of people, can't we all just get along? Or do we have to wash away all differences in order for that to happen? > [JC] > Uniting does not mean erasing individual differences. > > [Arlo] > Pirsig specifically said "unite... into ONE". He specifically calls the > schism a "problem", and offered a "resolution of the entire PROBLEM of > classic and romantic understanding". His solution is the "classic and > romantic understanding should be UNITED at a basic level." No where in ZMM > do I see him make any effort to maintain this division, no where do I am > here say these should be coexisting but independent categories. His > argument originates in a world (Ancient Greece) where this division does > not exist. > > Jc: The way I read it is that we need science that is beautiful and art that makes sense. The way I read it those distinctions are preserved but tamed by a larger context. I see you read it differently but I can't imagine how this would work out pedagogically. You honestly think motorcycle maintenance ought to be taught by the same guy who teaches sculpture? > [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. > > [Arlo] > No, because I'd say that global-corporate economic control is not a > high-quality endeavor. What it IS, often, is a manifestation of social > power seeking to dominate intellectual patterns. Jc: It seems more like a social power trying to dominate everything, not just intellect. Arlo: > I think others have already said to you that just because human activity > can be artful, doesn't mean all human activity is artful. You seem to think > that Pirsig's solution obliterates art, and I think that only demonstrates > you do not understand much of what he has said. Pirsig's solution RESCUES > 'art', and until you understand that, you're missing the entire point. > > I must admit I am questioning my grasp of the subject, now that I've talked with you about it. I didn't realize I was so confused and I'm still confused as to whether I'm confused, you are, or Pirsig was. But I'm sure we'll work it out. 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
