Arlo, You and I have wrangled over art quite a bit. Maybe my problem with Pirsig's lack of intellectualizing about art is just this: Art shouldn't be intellectualized.
I think it might just boil down to that and when I think about it, he's right. Art can't be analyzed or defined: it should be inculcated into everything one does. Ok? JohnC On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [John] > Is Pirsig about learning one route, and one route only? If what we are > supposed to take from his work, is memorizing words and parroting them > exactly, then I guess I've really been wrong about ZAMM and Lila. > > [Arlo] > Any philosophy forum is open to (or should be open to) what I call > "learned disagreement". Philosophy itself, as a tradition, is a long > narrative of thesis, disagreement, affirmation, reconstruction and > extension. Pirsig, in this larger narrative, presents a "learned > disagreement" with the Aristotelian tradition and how it has shaped > cultural attitudes. His work is, in many ways, an extension of the works of > James and Dewey and other pragmatists. It is not 'copy', but it is not a > soliloquy in a vacuum either. > > But (as DMB already pointed out numerous times), disagreement is > predicated on an understanding of what you are, ostensibly, disagreeing > with. This is why I refer to it as "learned disagreement". In order to form > a critical response to Aristotle, Pirsig had to really understand what > Aristotle was saying. Here is where you 'disagreements' fall down. You keep > presenting disagreement with Pirsig in ways that demonstrate you really > don't understand Pirsig. Your question to Dan "where is art?" is an > astounding example of this. Aside from the fact that Pirsig answers this > very question, is the simplest of terms ("Art is high-quality endeavor."), > it ignores the entire endeavor, to unify a duality caused by the > philosophical tradition he is criticizing. Art is not separate from, is not > in opposition with, is not contrary to, intellectual endeavors. Art is as > much a part of scientific practice as it is painting and drumming. Art is > every much 'high-quality' motorcycle repair as it is > 'high-quality' clay sculpting. > > Recently you've stated that "the 4th level gives birth to the 3rd level". > This is a more clear disagreement with Pirsig, as you're altering Pirsig's > evolutionary model. But this also changes the notion of hierarchical moral > superiority, unless this is a clear statement that social level patterns > are morally superior to intellectual level patterns. Otherwise, you aren't > really talking about an evolutionary morality (and certainly not Pirsig's > MOQ). > > In any case, John, as has been said many, many, many times, you are > certainly free to disagree with Pirsig. You are certainly free to make a > case for why your reconstruction is a better metaphysics than Pirsig's. I > disagree with Pirsig on a few points. No one here is demanding you 'parrot' > his words, that's just a fiction you're creating. But, those here who point > out your disagreements are based in misunderstanding are absolutely correct > in pointing this out. > > As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is "A said B. A > was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead of > B. Here's why C is better." Each step in this progression is subject to > examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as > criticism for another (or all). > > > > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
