Arlo, And on a completely different thread,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:01 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > > [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. Jc: It's the opinion of many and thus can't be ignored. But I don't have to go doing any research. I have within myself, two different approaches to thinking and they constantly interweave and weigh off against one another. Maybe it means I'm schizo, but if so, there seems to be a lot of it around. Arlo: 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. Jc: It's true, Arlo. the Academy is the home of the classically oriented intellectual. Artists are more individualists, I think. They need solitude to hear the still small voice. Arlo: 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. Jc: Sure. current research, the fad of the times. Certainly the darling of academicians, eh? It shows how "with it" they are. Nothing worse than a man relying on outdate research. What ever happened to that research, btw? Does it all go away or does it just lose it's truth value? Interesting process, really. Arlo: > > 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. Jc: Sort of, its more psychological distinction than a metaphysical one but I am construing a point about the nature of the 4th level and the human ability to creatively conceptualize. I believe I'm correcting an overly intellectual orientation of this forum, sure. But I think this is what the MoQ actually calls for, in the end. Arlo: 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. Jc: I believe we're past all that now, but if you want me to explain one more time... tough. neurology is classically determined as a discipline and doesn't even want to admit that artistry exists or is relevant so no, I'm not really oriented that way. Arlo: > > 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: Schisms are bad, because they are absolute, but naming difference is just rational. > [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: The major dysfunction of ZAMM was a man trapped by intellect. The novel was the expressed art which resolved his conflict. You can't intellectually escape intellect you can only do so artfully. > [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. Jc: The trappedness is because of intellect-oriented SOM, but the orientation of people stems from their being. If we didn't have words for it, would the distinction cease to exist? Maybe. but trying to get people to forget a conceptualized distinction doesn't seem possible to me. Arlo: > > 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: Yes, that is how I see it too. The distinction is at least as useful as SQ vs DQ, but they are not opposed, they are complementary. Good. 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
