> On May 22, 2014, at 1:55 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> >> >> [JC to Ant] >> ... > > > I speak of "technique" in Ellul's French pronunciation and > meaning - not craftsmanship, but industrialized, imitative, copying.
Ron: When I google technique I get: technique (tɛkˈniːk) or technic n 1. a practical method, skill, or art applied to a particular task 2. proficiency in a practical or mechanical skill 3. special facility; knack: he had the technique of turning everything to his advantage. [C19: from French, from technique (adj) technic] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 Where are you getting that meaning from? > John Carl: > 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. Ron: Ahhhh I believe there we have it again You need something to fight against. Even if you have to create it yourself. John Carl: > But I don't think Pirsig meant to eliminate art, or intellect, but to get > them back together and get along with one another. > Ron : He is not eliminating anything but A misunderstanding. That misunderstanding being that art And intellect are distinct when they Essentially meant the same thing originally. > By not offering any kind of explanation for your beliefs , You are not really advancing anything But your own personal gripes and justifying your presumed deficiencies In the effective communication to other human beings. You are belittling and insulting and you sound more white than the whites you condemn..... Brother.. It's getting embarrassing . Really it is. And I say that regretfully. -Ron .. > > >> 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 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
