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.