> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Buchanan
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:23 PM
> To: 'moq_focus@moq.org'
> Subject: RE: MF Art and technology
>
>
>
>
>
> John Beasley and all philosophers: I'm afraid this one is awfully long. I
> didn't feel justified in cutting up much of John's original post, but at
> least it'll read like a conversation. I'll try to limit my responses so
> that the dialogue is approximately balanced.
>
> JOHN B
> Thanks for the challenge, David. The 'silence' you refer to is partly due
> to my inability to
> spend the time on these forums to do justice to the debates that interest
> me, but in this case
> is also due to not yet feeling engaged in anything substantial.
>
> DMB - This month's topic seems to be your cup of tea. I would have thought
> you'd be all over this one. Hope I don't bore you...
>
> JOHN B
> I've just read the section of Ch 14 of ZMM which you recommended, and
> still feel
> disconnected. Pirsig argues that the ugliness of the technological world
> is not necessary.
> "What's wrong with technology is that it's not connected in any real way
> with matters of the
> spirit and of the heart." He goes on to argue that the problem is at the
> source, in rationality
> itself, but then argues for an expanded rationality that is capable of
> coming up with a
> solution. This expanded rationality would involve exploration in an
> entirely new direction,
> "into realms beyond reason". (The rationality of un-reason??)
> "Conventional reason becomes
> less and less adequate to handle the experiences we have and ... as a
> result we're getting
> more and more people in irrational areas of thought - occultism,
> mysticism, drug changes
> and the like - because they feel the inadequacy of classical reason to
> handle what they know
> are real experiences." He mentions the bankruptcy of classical reason with
> regard to abstract
> art, and then moves into the introduction of the major theme of the book:
> quality. (I trust this
> brief review is reasonably true to Pirsig's intent)
>
> DMB - Wow, this is a big chuck. Fortunately, its pretty much right on
> target. But the phrase "rationality of un-reason" strikes me as a
> deliberate misunderstanding. Surely you don't really think Pirsig is
> saying we need more irrational areas of thought, and must know that there
> is a world of difference between irrational and non-rational. Occultism is
> irrational, abstract expressionism is non-rational, etc. Here's what I
> think... The scluture/rotisserie assembly scene is just one concrete
> example of Pirsig's major theme. Why are the values of the spirit and
> heart absent in our technology? Why are the values of the spirit and the
> heart absent in our scientific worldview? Why are the values of the spirit
> and the heart absent form anything at all? These are the questions. This
> is the theme. Classical reason is bankrupt precisely because of this
> absense of human values. See, its not just the romantic response or
> irrational areas of escape, but rationality itself, the cause of those
> responses and flights; amoral scientific objectivity is the soul murdering
> target of Pirsig's quest. In Lila all this is expanded to explain all the
> horrors and isolation of the 20th century.
>
> JOHN B
> You suggest that Pirsig would "like us to understand the ideas behind the
> technology in our
> lives so we can relate to the ideas behind those inventions" but as you go
> on to suggest,
> that's just not possible anymore. Until recently the cars I've owned have
> been from the early
> 80's, and if they broke down I could hope to diagnose the fault and
> perhaps even repair them
> enough to get going again, not unlike Pirsig with his motorcycle. But the
> car I drive now is full
> of hi-tech black boxes that I cannot understand or fix, nor would it be
> worth my while to even
> attempt to try. The technology is also friendlier (while it works) and the
> design much
> improved. I quite like my new car. To this extent I agree with Leighton's
> sentiments when he
> describes the 'beauty' of a well designed bottle opener. I'm not sure that
> good design has
> anything to do with technology as such, though. The 'rightness' I
> associate with good design
> seems to me similar to the 'rightness' I associate with good art. At base,
> technology is judged
> by whether it works efficiently. Aerodynamic considerations may result in
> artistically pleasing
> body shapes, and I can understand people who find a satisfaction in the
> highly refined
> efficiency of machine parts, though they do little to turn me on. I remain
> unconvinced that
> technology and art share the same roots, though, even if they coexist in
> my car.
>
> DMB - You're telling me about the beauty of cars? Hey, I'm from Detroit.
> My dad designs the machines that build the cars. Preachin' to the choir. I
> think Pirsig's notion of expanding rationality is much deeper than design
> issues and such. If I understand what he's saying, its not at all about
> blurring the distinctions between machines and painting or aesthetics with
> engineering. He's saying all of those things have value of different kinds
> and that they are all worth saving and preserving, but we expand the
> context so that all those values serve higher purpose. Its not about
> blurring the lines but integrating the various kinds of quailty into a
> larger picture. They aren't disposed of, but they are transcended and
> liberated, just as the lower levels are the basis for the higher levels.
> Bodvar discussed this idea in an earlier post. Its hard to talk about, but
> you've read the books too. Please use your imagination and help me out
> here.... read between the lines and all that.
>
> JOHN B
> I'm reminded that when the sculptor Brancusi attempted to export some of
> his highly refined
> abstract metal sculptures into the USA the customs authorities forced him
> to describe them
> as 'machine parts'. But surely this is the problem. What Brancusi was
> about had nothing to
> do with 'ideas behind technology', however much his wonderful sculptures
> had in common
> with machine parts to some ignorant official. And this is the core of my
> argument. Pirsig
> wants quality to become the common denominator between the worlds of
> aesthetics and
> technology. He talks about the American Indians use of the word 'good'.
> That's a good dog,
> Dusenberry's a good man, and so on. But when Pirsig went to talk with the
> Indians who had
> known and loved Dusenberry, the conversation became difficult and died
> down. So Pirsig
> went off to read anthropology, and we got 'Lila'. We got ideas about the
> 'good', but not the
> contact and encounter that was important to "Dusenberry and his Indians".
> Pirsig explains
> this failure to connect as not having "the knack for casual conversation
> that Dusenberry had."
> Poor Dusenberry. Frustrated in life and frustrated after his death by
> perhaps his best 'friend'
> from the academic world. The chasm between Dusenberry's encounters with
> Indians and
> Pirsig's encounters with Indians had little to do with conversational
> skills. Dusenberry refused
> to be objective. "The only way to find out about Indians is to CARE for
> them and win their
> love and respect", he says. Pirsig couldn't. And sadly, that's where the
> divide is for him
> between art and technology. Pirsig understands art as a branch of 'ideas',
> when ultimately art
> is to be loved and experienced. Which is not to say that ideas about art
> are not valid in their
> own context, just that they are not art.
>
> DMB - Well, now you're being a little silly and I'm not so sure its even
> on the topic except in the broadest sense. As I see it, Pirsig understands
> technology as a branch of ideas, completely rational ideas, but he didn't
> describe art in those terms. Quality isn't a common denominator in the
> sense that it undermines important distinctions. Classical reason is not
> adequate, its necessary, but more is needed. See? A necessary but
> insufficient condition for the expansion of rationality.
> Ya gotta have a rationality to expand in the first place. You don't throw
> it away, you fix it and grow it. Preserve and transcend, preserve and
> transcend. That's what the whole shebang is about. I'll wait to respond to
> the idea that Pirsig is bookish and socially awkward, I think there's a
> good reason for it....Dusenberry, the Indians, the dog? I just don't see
> how its on the topic and this is long enough.
>
> JOHN B
> As a metaphysician Pirsig shapes words to explore his reality, and he does
> it well. The
> results are attractive, as far as they go. He's very good with ideas, and
> very poor with that
> whole realm of experience that has to do with encounter. He can talk
> about it, but he can't
> do it, and it shows. (He borrows the 'best books he could find on
> anthropology', and goes off
> alone to a 'remote campground' to prepare for his book about Indians. Lila
> Ch 4) That's why
> his insights into both people and art are so unconvincing.
>
> DMB - He can't do it and it show? NO, no, no. You've underestimated Pirsig
> as a writer. It doesn't show so much as HE SHOWS US. In the broadest sense
> his personality does relate to his philosophy, but not in the negative way
> you imagine. There's the idea that people who solve larger problems for
> everyone, our heros and culture bearers, are just working out their own
> personal problems. Such was the case with the Zuni shaman and such is the
> case with Pirsig. His isolation is our isolation. In ZAMM this is worked
> out on a more personal level, between man and machine and between father
> and son. Its about John and Silvia and people like them. And we detect the
> isolation throught out it all for a reason, that's the problem we're all
> working on. The recurring nightmare that turns out to be a vague memory,
> that scene where he is isolated from his family behind the cold silence of
> the glass doors still haunts me because its too true. And Chris can never
> really communicate through the noise and helmuts until he's allowed to
> risk the full experience of the ride at the end of the novel. In Lila we
> get an historical and cultural description of this same isolation. The MOQ
> is much more precise about why human values seem to be absent from so many
> areas of modern life, the recent take-over of a flawed intellectual level.
> He puts your feelings of disconnected-ness in the context of a giant leap
> in evolutionary cosmology. Its a very broad thing and yet it seems to
> address your personal concerns, even if you don't think so.
>
> JOHN B
> In my first post on this topic, I tried to express something of what it
> means to be an artist. Can
> I beg mercy from the censors and now quote extensively from the best book
> of art criticism
> that I know, in order to give an intellectual response to art from a
> perspective that values art
> as a HUMAN enterprise. The book is Suzi Gablik's "Has Modernism Failed?",
> and these
> extracts are from her last chapter.
>
> DMB - I thought about nixing these quotes from Gablik, but they seemed so
> sympathetic with Pirsig's views that I thought they really deserved
> comment. It seems to me that Pirsig explains exactly why modernism has
> failed in Lila. I'm baffled as to why you submit them as something
> contrary to the MOQ, John. They seem to address the same concerns Pirsig
> addresses, althought he has some anseres where Gablick only has questions
> and compalints. In fact, I'm bewildered by your general disappointment in
> the MOQ. It seems to answer your most heart-felt questions.
>
> GABLIK
> "If we accept as accurate Erich Fromm's description, in 'The Sane
> Society', of which human
> needs are basic and essential - the need for relatedness, for
> transcendence (a concept
> which for Fromm has nothing to do with God but refers to the need to
> transcend one's self-
> centered, narcissistic, alienated position to one of being related to
> others, and open to the
> world), the need for rootedness, for a sense of identity, and for a frame
> of orientation and an
> object of devotion - then the achievements of modernism would appear to
> have been had at
> too high a cost."
>
> DMB - I think Pirsig would agree that the cost is too high. And Fromm's
> list strikes me as all the most important social values, they are the
> things that give context and meaning to our lives and that is precisely
> the problem with SOM and scientific materialism. Pirsig says that SOM
> makes it very hard to see social values, especially as their own level of
> reality. That blindness is the source of the absence of human values in
> our technology, and a whole host of other problems. Convential classical
> reason is inadequate in precisely this way. Pirsig's "invention" of the
> social level and the entire hierarchy of the levels of static quality is
> the beginning of the expansion of rationality. Its not an un-reasonable
> rationality, but one that includes non-rational values like rootedness and
> orientation. These things are absent from an SOM perspective, but not in
> the MOQ. Much of Lila is dedicated to exploring the social level exactly
> because its so hard to see. Pirsig has to harp on it and I've benn harping
> on it for months and still it seems to go unseen. Remember "we are
> suspended in language" and that Descartes can only think and exist because
> French culture exists? Remember Hilter as the embodiment of unmittigated
> social values? The Victorians, the indians, the Zuni shaman, the giant,
> new york city and celebrities and mirrors? November 1918. The terrible
> secret loneliness. Lila's affair and the end of a marriage. ALL THESE
> THINGS ARE ABOUT THE SOCIAL LEVEL VALUES! Its a broad fix, but I think it
> does answer Fromm.
>
> GABLIK
> "Modernism so embraced notions of freedom and autonomy - and of art
> needing to answer
> only to its own logic, its own laws, the pure aesthetic without a function
> - that we now have
> whole generations of artists who doubt that it was ever meant to be
> organically integrated
> with society in the first place."
>
> DMB - Right, our modern view has created a kind of hyper-individualism in
> the name of freedom, but that atomization only results in powerlessness
> instead of autonomy. We've been blinded some some of the most important
> sources of who and what we are. Art and technology are dis-integrated from
> social values, human values, not because of a problem with modern art or
> technology per se. The problem is the dehumanized brand of rationality
> that produces it. I mean, it seems obvious that pure aesthetic DOES HAVE A
> FUNCTION. Its not about cooking or transportation or realistic depiction,
> but that doesn't mean it has no function. It has no rational function. It
> has no objective function. But in the MOQ it still has value. And there we
> can still say the aesthetic "works".
>
> GABLIK
> "A tradition can only maintain its character as a tradition if it exists
> in a medium of certain
> virtues which impose restraints and provide a conception of excellence. A
> good is not
> something that is uniquely mine - it is bound up with the concept of
> observing a limit. For
> practices to flourish, it is necessary that they embody the virtues. In
> societies in which the
> virtues are not valued, it is difficult for practices to flourish."
>
> DMB - C'mon! Don't you think Pirsig would love all this talk about virtue
> and excellence? I do. It seems the call for the restraints of tradition is
> in the same spirit as Pirsig's static quality. Likewise, the flourish part
> is akin to Pirsig's notion of dynamic creativity. Preserve and transcend,
> preserve and transcend, over and over again. Understand the ideas behind
> what you're doing, master the static patterns, and then you can create
> something new. That's why Pirsig has to hit the books. He's an artist of
> the intellect and so he has to know that tradition. He has to master those
> static intellectual patterns before he can create new ones. You gotta get
> up to speed before you start cutting the front edge. Preserve and
> transcend... Its true for ideas and art and mechanics, and its the nature
> of the whole process of evolution.
>
> GABLIK
> "What is required to live well and flourish in the tradition of the
> virtues is very different from
> what is required to live well and flourish in the culture of bureaucratic
> individualism. Indeed,
> the possession of the virtues - the cultivation of truthfulness,
> moderation and courage - will
> often, according to MacIntyre, bar us from being rich or famous or
> powerful."
>
> DMB - I see this same notion in Pirsig's discussion about the outsiders,
> the contrarians and revolutionaries. I think he gets at it well with his
> descriptions of the genocideal giant, his sell-out frat brothers and in
> his refusal to sell ZAMM to Hollywood. Fame and riches are the rewards for
> those who serve the giant. Status and power are given to those who serve
> social values, mostly. Whereas truthfulness, moderation and courage are
> more about the heart and spirit. Pirsig gets at this with John Brown and
> Lincoln, Ghandi and even with Phaedrus himself. Gablik's views seem quite
> consistent with the MOQ, as far as I can see.
>
> JOHN B
> Notice the richness of the human concerns in the above, and contrast that
> with the poverty of
> Pirsig's approach. What is really interesting to me in Gablik's book is
> the connection between
> human needs (and what a wonderful list Fromm provides) and art, and
> society. The loss of
> relatedness and identity in the twentieth century is seemingly what
> motivates Pirsig in his
> writing, yet I still maintain that loneliness and isolation are the
> sub-themes of his writing. His
> attempt to find a place for value at the centre of things backfires badly,
> because the values
> he ends up promoting are inhuman and alienating. He praises New York for
> its dynamism,
> and accepts that it, the giant, devours people. Ideas are soulless things,
> yet they form the
> apex of his system. Gablik is concerned to show that art without roots in
> society becomes a
> meaningless, narcissistic indulgence. But the problem is that our society
> is itself antipathetic
> to the virtues of earlier societies, and distorts the basic needs of human
> beings.
>
> DMB - Again, I think the MOQ clearly shows WHY our society is so
> antipathetic about traditions and social values, its the result of a
> flawed intellect. What are "the virtues of earlier societies" if not
> static quality at the social level of values? I think you're confusing
> Pirsig's own interpersonal skills with his depiction of isolation and
> loneliness in the books. I mean, he's such a good writer that he's got you
> believeing that those impresssions of coldness and isolation were an
> unintentional spill over from his real life personality? No. I think he
> was demonstrating the problem on a personal level precisely in order to
> make it human. For him to show us scenes of community and connectedness
> and the joy of meaningful existence would have been a huge lie. Not even
> the MOQ can do that. Its only philosophy. Its only a book. One can expect
> only so much warmth from a metaphysical system, you know? It ain't
> self-help psychology, you know? But then again, his isolation is our
> isolation. We're supposed to winch as we recognize our selves in Pirsig's
> nerdiness. Speaking of which, perhaps the discomfort you express is partly
> due to the cold soul-less nature of cyber-space, where no one can hear you
> scream. Perhaps the apparent lack of human values is partly to the
> techno-geeky nature of this medium, of this kind of forum. There aren't
> many poets here.
>
> Thanks for your time. DMB
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST