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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Great Modern Schism

Classical: Understanding of the world achieved through reason and logic. The focus of this way of thinking is understanding what things mean or, in other words, understanding their underlying form. This way of thinking requires the analytical knife.
Romantic: The understanding of what a thing is. It is often associated with the creative and imaginative qualities of the human being, but it can also come across as rather shallow. This way of thinking rejects the analytical knife.
There have been several mornings when I would put on this striped sweater and decided to take it off. The sweater is perfectly functional. It was perfect for those cold weekday mornings. It has long sleeves. It's warm. I just decided not to wear it. It just didn't fit the look I was looking for.
Last week, I went to Safeway and I really wanted peanut butter. I had a choice between the brand name peanut butter and the Safeway brand peanut butter. I went with the Safeway brand. What? It's the same thing, except it's cheaper. That's the logical choice.
I think these two anecdotes capture the walking contradiction that I am. In the first example, my decision was eventually decided by what the shirt was and not what it meant. I did not make the logical choice. I did not choose function over form. In the second example, I chose the peanut butter solely for logical purposes. I chose the Safeway brand for its function and paid no attention to it's form. I don't care if someone catches me buying Safeway brand peanut butter. Romantic and classical. Isn't that weird? It just seems like there are certain situations that lend themselves better to the classical perspective and others that lend themselves better to the romantic perspective.
But there is the problem? When is the one better and when is the other better? To be honest, on those days when I was debating whether or not to wear the shirt, it took me a long time to finally decide. In reflection, I guess it wasn't really a decision between whether or not to wear the shirt, but whether to use classical or romantic understanding to make the decision. Not only can competition between the two ways of understanding split people into factions but it can also split individuals in two (figuratively speaking of course).
I guess that's why I agree with the narrator's view. The split between classical and romantic has split me in two. They simply cannot work together on all issues. Sure, if the brand name peanut butter was cheaper, they would be working together. Or, if the sweater was not so 90s, they would work together. But, there are many circumstances when choices have both good form and good function. The two understandings just have two different priorities.

Romantic? Classical?

Romantic and Classical viewpoints are both valid ways of looking at the world, although they seem to be polar opposites. "The discrimination is the division of the concious universe into parts." This is how Robert M. Pirsig defines the classical viewpoint. It is distinguishing and categorizing all things in the world. The classical viewpoint has rules, regulations, problems and solutions. It is built on logic. The romantic viewpoint on the other hand, is artistic and intuitive. It takes things at face value and doesn't try to break them up into smaller pieces as classical does. I think that the two viewpoints can be distinguished as scientifical and artistic. The question of which viewpoint I hold is tricky, because I believe I hold a bit of both. I like to get right to the point and understand objectively what is going on. I like math and science and I more easily believe and understand theories and situations based off of facts. I tend to think of all the possible outcomes in a situation and I'm a big fan of pro-con lists. But, on the other hand, I also love enjoying a beautiful landscape as a whole thing without breaking it up. I enjoy the countryside for its vastness, and I do not and would not try to distinguish the grass from the roots from where it meets the soil from the rocks from the pebbles. It all melds together into something very beautiful. I also enjoy thinking about emotions and subjective feelings, and analyzing how people act and think. But this can be considered classical as well as romantic because it can all be traced back to how and why the brain receptors react with different chemicals. I consider myself to have a classical viewpoint. I am always interested in the root of things and am fascinated by science. I tend to want to trace situations back to the roots and distinguish the parts, to come up with a solution. This is a very valid way of coming up with a solution, though. I disagree with this quote, as I, as well as everyone else, lives as a bit of both a Romantic and a Classical. It's impossible to live a life based only on science, because emotions affect many decisions. Even if one looks at the world very scientifically and factually, he or she is still perceptible to appreciate small beauties for their face value. In the same way, it would be difficult to live as only a Romantic. People have a natural tendency to want to know how and why and how something can be solved. It's natural to want to know the cause and root of things, in order to find a sensible answer. Therefore, I don't believe these two values are irreconsilable. They can and do coexist in many, or all, people.

Romantic VS Classical

The author of the novel is correct in saying that there are two types of people, those who see things in the classical way, and those who see the romantic way. The classical way of seeing things is completely objective, its about science, meausrements and splitting things up to analyze them. The Romantic way is to see something from it face value, the appearance. They dont care about what each part does or why it does it, they care about how it sounds right, geels right, and looks right. I like to say I am both of these different personalities because i do believe in technology and understanding how things work. I also agree with the author that it is necassary to know motorcycle matainance to go on motorcycle trips. But i would definately not be satisfied if someone tried to fix my BMW with a aluminum beer can. Even though it may work perfectly, and that it may be identical to what a mechanic would put in, i couldnt do it. It would just be wrong to use such a cheap thing like a beer can on my bike, i wouldnt be able to do it.
It is possible to have both views coexist with each other. I think you may have to have a bit of a understanding of both to successful though. You must be able to think classicly to advance society and think classicly to enjoy life's bounties and be passionate.

According to Robert M. Persig and Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance, there are two types of human understanding the romantic mode which is described as "primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, and intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate.” In contrast, classical “proceeds by reason and by laws which are themselves underlying forms of thoughts and behavior.”
I would describe myself as more of a classical person mostly because im not the romantic mode. I wouldn't describe myself as that creative or intuitive. When I do things, I like to know what the next step is or exactly how to do something, which is similar to what the classical perspective is.
I do not agree that these are irreconcilable or that either of these ways of living are valid. No one can live their life purely by facts and reasoning or by just imagination and creativity. there needs to be a mix which would make them not irreconcilable.

How Romantic...

From my basic understanding of what the story Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the difference between a romantic and classical perspective is that a romantic perspective approaches matters from a more artistic standpoint and classical perspective from a more scientific one. In other words, a romantic thinks more creatively and imaginatively and a classical thinker thinks more factually. A good analogy that the author uses is how a romantic looks at a handful of sand for the whole handful that it is, while a classical thinker analyzes and groups each individual grain of sand.

It's hard to say which I would consider myself though. I feel like it easy for a person to want the universe to be all factual (at least from personal experience). If everything was either right or wrong, people would know what religion to follow, or if religion even mattered. People would know why they existed and why would die eventually. It's pretty to think of a purely factual universe where everyone knows their purpose, their reason. Or is it?

I think I have come to accept what uncertainty and an inspirational imagination actually have to offer. In reality, we can't keep breaking things down to try and figure out their components, because the deeper we get into the anatomy of any matter, the more we have to continue to break up. If we spend our whole lives trying to figure out why we exist and what everything in the universe is made out of, we don't have anytime to actually live. I should only speak for myself when I say this, because other people may get a kick out of trying to classify and analyze everything in their surroundings. For me though, if you put me on a mountain top in Hawaii so I could look out across the entire landscape and seascape, I wouldn't start by categorizing and playing with the rocks beneath my feet; I would enjoy the wonder of the entire view in front of me. The wonder, the uncertainty of how all the natural beauty before me was formed, would satisfy me more than spending my whole life trying to find a concrete explanation.

I'm sure being a classical thinker has its upsides too though. Some people may say there is a rush in finding answers to "unknowns" and getting closer to solving the mysteries of the universe. Honestly, I think finding conclusions like this are impossible (humans have been trying for some time now), and I think a human's time would be better spent being dazzled than trying to find out who's the man behind the curtain.

Romantic v Classical

There are two ways at which people can look at the world according to Robert M. Pirsig, you can ether use the analytical knife or you don't. To be more exact, those who use the analytical knife are known as the classical type of person, who puts mind over matter. These people break down subjects into components and than make decisions based upon what they find. The type of person who does not use the analytical knife, but instead chooses to see the world as a whole, choosing to appreciate the surface rather than its components are known as the romantics, whom I have always identified with more than the classical type of person. I never truly understood the point of breaking every little detail down and classifying everything, and even I find it sometimes frivolous to do so. Even past teachers of mine have said I was always better at understanding the bigger picture rather than the fine details, and i have had to become accustomed, like all romantics, to living in a world which places very high values on the details and the classical view of things. Whenever somebody attempts to break down the beautiful things I see everyday, i cannot help but mourn the loss of beauty and feel that some things were never meant to be dissected and numerated in such a unsavory manner, which is to say that people do it without thought of what is beautiful about that which they are categorizing. I feel that people loose themselves when to heavily immersed in the classical way of thinking and that far to many people are pressured into classical views by modern day society and loose imagination. I believe that people become lost in their own lists and because they must place everything in a category, resentment emerges towards people and things that are not of "the norm". My father is a brilliant example of a classical thinker, and he and I never see eye to eye, for we have different values based upon our views of the world. He loves details, i love the big picture and the grander scheme of things. This all is not to say that i do not use the classical point of view in my daily life. On the contrary, I always think actions through before i carry them out, creating categories and possible outcomes in my head. and I also can appreciate the technology which the classical point of view has given us, and i would not risk hypocrisy in saying otherwise because i very much rely on technology in my everyday life. However i do not see flowers for their scientific definition, and never classify them into parts, but instead, enjoy the very sight of them because of their natural beauty. I see people who immerse themselves into the classical way of mind and lose themselves in false senses of supremacy of being. I do not deny that there are bad things that come out of the Romantic view. When people take it to far, the surface becomes all that matters, and that is just another path to false supremacy, However i consider myself a Romantic none the less and will continue to see the beauty in the world for the rest of my life. i very much agree that the two ways of viewing the world are valid ways of seeing the world, but I also believe that everybody uses both ways of thinking, however tend to use one more than the other. I also firmly believe that the world cannot truly advance without a healthy balance of both points of view. On one side if there were only romantics there would be little to no technological advances, and if there were only classical people than the world would become nothing but a component and people would go about following the lists others set out for them and all the worlds beauty would diminish.

Romantic or classical ?

Robert M. Pirsig divides human understanding into two categories, Romantic and classical mode. According to the Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance “the romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, and intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. Art when it is opposed to science.” On the other hand classic mode “proceeds by reason and by laws which are themselves underlying forms of thoughts and behavior.”
What category I fall under? Well that’s a tricky question. When it comes to work I tend to lean towards reason rather then my own feelings. Although I may want to socialize after school I choose to do my homework or go to work instead. I know if I don’t do my homework my grades will decline and if I take off work that means less money in my bank account. I choose facts over feelings. But some part of me thinks I fall under the romantic category too. The description of Romantic mode is “inspirational”, “imaginative”, “creative”, and “insightful” and these are all descriptions of me as a person as well. I like to be inspired and I like to inspire others, I like being imaginative and original, and I am a very understanding person; I like viewing other people’s perspectives rather just my own. When it comes to classes and occupations I prefer working with my emotional side then working with data. In math or science class everyone comes has to come up with the same conclusion but in English class everyone’s statement is different yet not technically wrong at the same time. And when it comes to writing I have a preference as well. I prefer writing short stories and poems instead of research papers. I guess I fall under both categories but a majority of me falls under romantic mode.
Robert M. Pirsige stated Romantic mode and classical mode are both “valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” I agree that these are both irreconcilable ways but disagree that either way is valid. I don’t think it’s valid to live your life based on only emotion nor do I believe you can live a life base on pure facts. You are either missing out on happiness or loosing site of responsibilities. In psychology I learned that you can’t live life fixed in one perspective; you have to have a balance.

Blog Post #7: Ways of Looking at the World

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. Briefly articulate the distinction between the two. Then, explore how you fit into either of these dichotomies. Give examples that illustrate the tendencies that make you, personally, either classical and/or romantic. Conclude by discussing if you agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” (Chap. 7—a few pages in)

POST DUE: Thursday, May 13th by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Tuesday, May 18th by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.