[JC re: left/right brainedness] 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] I hear this a lot. Its a reduction of expertise and research to opinion. But where would we be? We'd be in the Academy, John. This is where research and theory and praxis are tested and thought about and hypothesized about, and we do research and form better opinions and move forward. You're making a very specific claim, in order to reduce Pirsig's problematic classical/romantic schism to one that is determined by neurophysiology. I'm saying, the current research does not support that at all. What's critical here is that you're not making the claim to support a neurological position, you're coopting a popularly held neurological belief in order to support a metaphysical distinction. If you were interested in neurology, I suppose, you'd find better discussion on a neurology board, or you'd be going through the current research yourself to see what's going on in the field. But what you seem to be interested in is finding neurological theories, no matter how they are being reshaped by current studies, that support your belief that Pirsig's classical and romantic modes of thinking are neurological determined. Where Pirsig was arguing for a way of overcoming this philosophically-determined artificial schism, you're seeking to make it a biological-determined natural distinction. [JC] 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. [Arlo] Why is is a bad thing is articulated as the major dysfunction in ZMM. [JC] 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? [Arlo] I'll ignore the reductio ad absurdum here (who's talking about eliminating "all differences"?). What Pirsig was arguing is that people like the cold, artless 'scientist' and the anti-intellectual, reasonless 'artist' aren't 'just different kinds of people' but are trapped in ways of thinking that do not do justice to either, let alone do justice to Quality. He's arguing that these are not natural ways of thinking, but emanate from a faulty metaphysical premise. He's not talking about eliminating the distinction between the scientist and the sculptor, of course they do different activities, of course their own internal aesthetics and reason have different 'flavors'. He's not talking about eliminate the distinction between activity, but eliminating the idea that the distinction is one of 'reason vs. art'. [JC] You honestly think motorcycle maintenance ought to be taught by the same guy who teaches sculpture? [Arlo] This is just an absurd argument. Of course I want my maintenance done by someone with the specific knowledge related to this activity. But, hell yes give me a mechanic who understands that his activity is an 'art', who sees the motorcycle as something he is 'sculpting'. Just like, hell yes, give me a sculptor who understands that his activity has a reason and an intellect to it, who sees his works as something to which he is 'maintaining'. I'm not sure where or why you've drawn the conclusion that eliminating the problem of the classical and romantic schism means that artful work can be done by anyone without any domain expertise of knowledge within that domain, which is informed by both 'reason' and 'beauty'. 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
