At the end of Chapter 17 in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator comments that ego goals are a kind of motivation that is "ultimately destructive" because "any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster" (p. 189 pink). Even more, he later says that "when an ego-climber has an image of himself to protect he naturally lies to protect this image" (p. 197 pink).
For the first 1/2 of your response, answer the following: Do you agree or not, and why? Briefly explain why you think the narrator believes this. Is his strong opinion related to Phaedrus in any way?
For the second 1/2 of your response, answer the following: What about you and your ego goal of going to college and making a future for yourself? How would you personally respond to the narrator.
Developed responses to both sets of questions are required for full points!
RESPONSES DUE BY THE START OF CLASS ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8TH.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
POSTING FOR QUESTION #7 HAS ENDED / RESPONSE TO THE GROUP BELOW
SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 7 (QUESTIONS ON ROMANTIC/CLASSICAL UNDERSTANDING) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!
THANKS,
Mr. B
My response to the group:
I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. You were equally split over whether the classical and romantic approaches to understanding were reconcilable.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding and you say both approaches to understanding go together well. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, 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. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!
THANKS,
Mr. B
My response to the group:
I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. You were equally split over whether the classical and romantic approaches to understanding were reconcilable.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding and you say both approaches to understanding go together well. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, 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. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Post 7
The author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance separates human understanding into two categories: classical and romantic. Being classical means being logical and rational. Being romantic is considering the feelings and emotions of something. Looking at something classically means looking at it's purpose and meaning. Looking at it romantically means looking at the associations involved with its presence.
In my opinion, the two forms of human understanding are different and irreconcilable, but they both are valid ways of looking at the world. I do not think someone can be classical and romantic at the same time, but they can be classical at some points in their lives while romantic at other times. AS people change over time, their understanding and mode of viewing the world is bound to change, but I do not think one can be both romantic and classical.
I, personally, am definitely a romantic thinker. In most situations, I am more affected by feelings and inspirations than anything else. I tend to look at things in a way that isn't so logical, but is more attached. I have had the same pair of shoes for years, and I love them even though they are falling apart at the soles and are covered in dirt. I love them because of their personality and because they are basically a part of my personality as well. Even though they are falling apart, I refuse to buy and wear a new pair because they wont have the same significance to me. Clearly, the decisions I make are more wrapped up in emotions than in the logical sense of things.
Classical vs. Romantic Perpectives
According to Robert M. Pirsig in the novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence, there are two perspectives in this world, one that is romantic and the other classical. As described in the book, a classical point of view is one that is more scientific and straighforward with an emphasis on problem solving. The narrator is described as seeing the world in this perspective due to his exceptional skills in repairing his motorcycle and by following the right way to fix his bike; the logical and careful way. On the other hand, a romantic perspective is one that is quite the opposite, leaning more towards a creative and inspirational mindset.
I have to say that I dont think I fall into any of those catagories. There are times where classical thinking is more appropriate than romantic and vice versa. For example when something stops working and needs to be fixed, it makes more sense to me to just fix it the most logical and scietific way, that way theres almost no room for mistakes. I would use a more romantic approach when probably doing a project for school. Rather than just write a boring paper on something I've learned, I would much rather choose to do something more artistic, showing my creative side.
I don't think it's necessary to fall into just one of those labels, creative or romantic. A person is much more dynamic if they carry different qualities, you got to change it up.
I have to say that I dont think I fall into any of those catagories. There are times where classical thinking is more appropriate than romantic and vice versa. For example when something stops working and needs to be fixed, it makes more sense to me to just fix it the most logical and scietific way, that way theres almost no room for mistakes. I would use a more romantic approach when probably doing a project for school. Rather than just write a boring paper on something I've learned, I would much rather choose to do something more artistic, showing my creative side.
I don't think it's necessary to fall into just one of those labels, creative or romantic. A person is much more dynamic if they carry different qualities, you got to change it up.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Post 7
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the classical perspective is defined by the use of logic and rationality, and the examination of the underlying forms of things. In other words, the classical mode of thinking is a focus on what a thing means. The romantic point of view, on the other hand, is a focus on what a thing is. It uses feelings and inspiration based off of whatever is immediately apparent, without much regard to underlying structure.
I tend to use primarily the classical mode of thinking. I am persuaded more by facts than feelings in an argument, and am more interesting in studying science over art (though I do like both). While I can appreciate artistic beauty, I need to see a greater underlying point to really enjoy something. For example, I did not really enjoy the novel Girl with a Pearl Earring, because the writer used a very descriptive, metaphor-laden style for the sole purpose of making the writing seem beautiful (to mimic the style of a painting). This didn’t seem to have much point beyond creating beauty, and as a result I did not like the book very much.
I do agree that the two modes of thought have value and are irreconcilable with one another, but think it’s necessary to add that an individual can switch between one mode and the other. Very few people will approach everything from purely the classical mode or purely the romantic mode all of the time. For example, though I use primarily the classical point of view, I am able to look at a painting and be awed by its beauty (using the romantic point of view). I can then examine it more carefully and see the different techniques the artist used to create the painting’s overall effect (using the classical point of view), and the awe at seeing what the painting is will be replaced with appreciation of what the painting means. Both modes of thought will therefore provoke meaningful reactions, but cannot be used simultaneously.
I tend to use primarily the classical mode of thinking. I am persuaded more by facts than feelings in an argument, and am more interesting in studying science over art (though I do like both). While I can appreciate artistic beauty, I need to see a greater underlying point to really enjoy something. For example, I did not really enjoy the novel Girl with a Pearl Earring, because the writer used a very descriptive, metaphor-laden style for the sole purpose of making the writing seem beautiful (to mimic the style of a painting). This didn’t seem to have much point beyond creating beauty, and as a result I did not like the book very much.
I do agree that the two modes of thought have value and are irreconcilable with one another, but think it’s necessary to add that an individual can switch between one mode and the other. Very few people will approach everything from purely the classical mode or purely the romantic mode all of the time. For example, though I use primarily the classical point of view, I am able to look at a painting and be awed by its beauty (using the romantic point of view). I can then examine it more carefully and see the different techniques the artist used to create the painting’s overall effect (using the classical point of view), and the awe at seeing what the painting is will be replaced with appreciation of what the painting means. Both modes of thought will therefore provoke meaningful reactions, but cannot be used simultaneously.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Great Debate
Robert Pirsig, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about classical and romantic points of view in his book. He states that a person with a classical point of view would see things as many parts coming together to form a single thing. They focus much more on the structure and construction of an item as opposed to its appearance. A romantic person cares less about the inner workings of the item and more about its appearance. They care more about whether it works properly and less about the pieces its made of.
I can't say that I belong to either view point. Some of the time I see things in a romantic way; if it works and looks nice, I'll use it. If I see a car or jacket that is appealing and functions well, then I respect it. However, I feel like I am also a classical person especially when I'm forced to compare two similar objects. If I am given the choice between two of the same objects, like two jackets, two chairs or two shims, I will always pick the choice that is better constructed, even if they the both do a good job. Because of my background in sewing (where you build garments out of smaller individual pieces) I always tend to focus more on the item that is made better. For example, if I am given the choice between a designer leather jacket and a leather jacket from Wal-Mart, I would always choose the designer jacket. Although the designer jacket is much more expensive, I know for a fact that it's construction is superior to that of the Wal-Mart jacket. Some might say that if they do the same job to the same degree, it doesn't matter which one is chosen, but I disagree. If its made better, than I lean towards that one. For me, my view point flip flops between classical and romantic based on the situation and the object being observed.
I think each view is valid, but people should not be restricted to these two categories. I believe people should be able to decide on a view point based on their own identity. People should be allowed to choose one of these viewpoints or blend the two or pick a completely different view on the world.
I can't say that I belong to either view point. Some of the time I see things in a romantic way; if it works and looks nice, I'll use it. If I see a car or jacket that is appealing and functions well, then I respect it. However, I feel like I am also a classical person especially when I'm forced to compare two similar objects. If I am given the choice between two of the same objects, like two jackets, two chairs or two shims, I will always pick the choice that is better constructed, even if they the both do a good job. Because of my background in sewing (where you build garments out of smaller individual pieces) I always tend to focus more on the item that is made better. For example, if I am given the choice between a designer leather jacket and a leather jacket from Wal-Mart, I would always choose the designer jacket. Although the designer jacket is much more expensive, I know for a fact that it's construction is superior to that of the Wal-Mart jacket. Some might say that if they do the same job to the same degree, it doesn't matter which one is chosen, but I disagree. If its made better, than I lean towards that one. For me, my view point flip flops between classical and romantic based on the situation and the object being observed.
I think each view is valid, but people should not be restricted to these two categories. I believe people should be able to decide on a view point based on their own identity. People should be allowed to choose one of these viewpoints or blend the two or pick a completely different view on the world.
Zen
According to Robert M. Pirsig the world can be divided into two distinct categories: romantic and classical. Those who view the world in a romantic way see it for the beauty of its whole. They don't care too much about the internal structure of things and how they operate, they care more about the external appearance and overall function. Those who look at the world classically see it for what's going on underneath the surface and what can't be perceived by the eye, only the mind. Pirsig uses the example of a motorcycle where a romantic would see the machine as a whole and would judge it on it's outward appearance and how well it serves its purpose. Someone looking at it classically would see the complexities of its internal structure and find beauty not in the appearance but in the way that so many tiny parts have come together to create an overall structure that operates and functions properly. As for me, both views are incredibly intriguing. I really enjoy thinking about how and why things work, but I also have huge admiration for those things as a whole. If I saw a motorcycle I would definitely immediately judge it by how nice it looks (especially since I don't know very much about motorcycles), but hearing about how that motorcycle came to be and function as it does would be extremely interesting for me too. Persig's idea that motorcycles are a system of structures that are "normally interrelated in patterns and paths so complex and so enormous no one person can understand more than a small part of them in his lifetime" is such an intriguing idea that I completely agree with. I love thinking about these incredibly complex structures not just with motorcycles but with all aspects of life. I think the classic view of the world is a very interesting one, however I don't think it's the better one. I don't think the romantic view is better either. Sometimes it's more interesting to look at the world in an irrational way. It doesn't have to be all about structures and systems. It's nice to be able to grab a pile of sand and be able to admire it without trying to figure out how to immediately sort it and interrelate it. I think its ok to look at the world in many different ways or even in just one way if that's what you prefer. The world is beautiful and as long as you see that it doesn't matter how you're looking at it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)