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.