Arlo,
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > > [Arlo] > The irony, of course, is that the same people who condemn 'intellect' on > the grounds that some ideas are bad, and the same people that, on those > grounds, demand that social patterns dominate intellectual patterns... > these are the same people that turn and say that all 'interpretations' of > Pirsig are equally valid, that there is no way to discern who is right and > who is wrong, its all just a matter of opinion. Witness John who continues > to not only dwell in ZMM's problem space, but he has naturalized it into > the way things are. Jc: The irony is, dear Arlo, is moquers who use the term "intellect" unproblematically in a deeply problematic space. We live in the world and SOM runs the world and the kind of intellect that the world knows is SOM. We here at the MoQ might very well have a deeper and better understanding of intellect as part of the 4th level (or the whole level, to some) and get that there is a deeper Valuation going on. Objective truth, is a myth that we use to communicate by. But intellectuals, take their "objective facts" be they scientific facts or correct interpretation of metaphysical postitions, as having some sort of special value, simply because they the intellectuals, believe it. It's a mish-mash of real world situations and moq-ese, which masks a static, social, self-interest. Arlo: Its no longer a problem, people are either 'classical' > or 'romantic' and rather than unite these into one the best we can do is > help classical people think a little more 'artistically' and help romantic > people think a little more 'logically'. But (for John) this is an > entrenched distinction, not one to be overcome, but one that just IS. And, > of course, he can claim that this represents Pirsig's ideas because, after > all, its all just opinion and interpretation. Jc: nope, I don't think you understand, Arlo. You don't understand pragmatism and you certainly don't understand me! Let's call it something different, this distinction you says that doesn't exist - let's call it the analytic and holistic. And if you don't believe in the difference, Pirsig discovered it in school, when he asked (him'self') "where do hypothesis come from?" They don't arise logically, there is another half of thinking. It's power is, you can't analyze anything, until its been conceptualized. this is more an art, than a science and yet what confused so, young Phaedrus, who was in school for science. You don't understand pragmatism because you seem to hold that the distinction isn't real, and thus proving to me that I'm wrong. But by an MoQ valuation, no distinctions are "real" some are just better than others. You haven't described your reasons, much more Pirsig's, as to why that distinction is bad. Arlo: > > "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) Jc: Uniting at a basic level, is not obviating a useful distinction in fact it's enforcing it. Believing in a unity and searching for deeper unity, is what philosophy and metaphysics are all about. But the unity of individual patterns, is not the obviation of either pattern but a joining into a higher pattern by both. Calling the 4th level "art and science" doesn't degrade science, or art. There's even a moral hierarchy involved then, in the 4th level which is that Science is oriented to SQ, what exactly is, and Art to DQ, what may be. I like it. Only thing intellectuals don't like about it is that they all want to be at the top of the moral hierarchy, looking down on the rest of us. Screw that, man. > > "In each case there's a beautiful way of doing it and an ugly way of doing > it, and in arriving at the high-quality, beautiful way of doing it, both an > ability to see what "looks good" and an ability to understand the > underlying methods to arrive at that "good" are needed. Both classic and > romantic understandings of Quality must be combined." (ZMM) > > This is the solution, "a fusion of classic and romantic quality" (ZMM), > that continues to evade John, despite his reliance on slippery sophistry. > Because, as you correctly pointed out, it contradicts the notion that > intellect is *inherently* SOM (and its correlate that 'art' is confined to > 'the romantic'). And THAT, of course, is like a frustrating cancer that the > anti-intellectuals continue to propagate. > Jc: I'm not talking about Phaedrus' world. The science and the art dept. NEVER had much to do with the other's thinking. This passage is condemning an artifical chasm, which couldn't be crossed. I agree. The chasm is a natural feature of human consciousness - some people think some ways, some people think others. The point isn't to eliminate the chasm, the point is to build bridges of communication. > [DMB] > It's the quality of the idea that matters, of course, and that's why we're > supposed to care about things like clarity, coherence, consistency with the > evidence, honesty, precision is the use of words and the relations between > concepts. These aren't arbitrary demands or oppressive rules used to > squelch dissent or anything like that. They are just some of the most > common marks of intellectual quality. Ideally, you want to raise this to an > art form and those will be some of the likely ingredients. The art of > rationality requires intellectual quality and then some. Jc: never have I argued against intellect, as an aspect of consciousness and thought. It's a very powerful tool. And I'm not anti-intellectual in the least, in that sense - I love philosophy, which is rational and open and ongoing and uber-intellectual, when you think about it. But I don't think intellectuals should run the world. I think that's kind of what we already have and it's not working our. All our greatest logicians go work for wall street. What kind of "running the world" is that? > > [Arlo] > This is worth repeating. Its the outcome of overcoming the problem of the > classical/romantic schism. "Reason" is an art, with its own markers of > Quality. Just like motorcycle repair, painting, dance, music, welding, or > anything else. It requires a fusion of both an understanding of the the > long freight-train of constructed knowledge and an awareness/appreciation > of that leading-edge of the train. 'Artful' motorcycle maintenance (aka > high-quality motorcycle maintenance) requires both a thorough understanding > of all the constructed knowledge pertaining to the motorcycle and an > appreciation/awareness that the motorcycle is not a separate 'object' but a > pattern of values that are in harmony with you and everything else. > > As Pirsig says in ZMM, ""Sometime look at a novice workman or a bad > workman and compare his expression with that of a craftsman whose work you > know is excellent and you'll see the difference. The craftsman isn't ever > following a single line of instruction. He's making decisions as he goes > along. For that reason he'll be absorbed and attentive to what he's doing > even though he doesn't deliberately contrive this. His motions and the > machine are in a kind of harmony. He isn't following any set of written > instructions because the nature of the material at hand determines his > thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change the nature of the > material at hand. The material and his thoughts are changing together in a > progression of changes until his mind's at rest at the same time the > material's right." ... "Sounds like art," the instructor says. ... "Well, > it is art," I say." (ZMM) > > Of course, for John, unable to see that a fusion of this "artificial > interpretation superimposed on reality" (ZMM) requires and unites both > modes of this schism, replies by asking me if I'd want a sculptor (implying > one with no knowledge of motorcycle repair) repairing my motorcycle. > > As Pirsig says, "there's a beautiful way of doing it and an ugly way of > doing it, and in arriving at the high-quality, beautiful way of doing it, > both an ability to see what "looks good" and an ability to understand the > underlying methods to arrive at that "good" are needed. Both classic and > romantic understandings of Quality must be combined." Jc: Well I've been saying that. But then that's all, "old news, past conceptualizations that the MoQ has evolved away from. But I believe Pirsig was talking about something beautiful, symetrical and timeless about human thought - it's dualistic nature. That you can't prefer one side over the other. I agree completely. 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
