POSTING FOR QUESTION #7 HAS ENDED / GROUP COMMENT 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. That classical and romantic approaches to understanding were indeed irreconcilable, suggesting that they don’t compliment each other.

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 yet you also say both understandings go together about as well as oil and water. 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.

classical vs. romantic

the classical way of viewing is the more analytical way of viewing things, breaking them down into the lists and functions that make up the larger object/being that is being thought of. an example of classical thinking is a scientific lab report or writeup. there are many different stages, materials and hypotheses that make up the greater object, being in this case, a science report.

a romantic way of viewing things is that of a sort of first impression or gut feeling of an object. an example of the romantic way of thinking is again the science report. a romantic view of this would be that it is not detailed lists and functions that go into the report, but just simply a scientific writeup on topic A.

although most people would like to see themselves as romantic thinkers, i believe that most people are in fact classical thinkers, as we are brought up in a society that thinks of things in a classical manner.

Classical vs. Romanticism

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the author talks about human understanding in 2 different categories, romantic and classical. A romantic is more likely to see something as a whole, and then think about it that way. A classical person takes apart the object or idea and puts it into different categories to try and understand it better.
I mostly fit into the romantic category. For example when I see my dad fixing his electric car all I can see are pieces that make the car, I don’t really see the way each one works and how together they can make a car work, in that way I think I am romantic. Also in the book when the narrator was describing how John is romantic because he can’t fix the motorcycle himself and always just wants to bring it to a professional, that is just like me. I don’t like fixing things myself cause I feel like I am always going to break something, like with my laptop, I would rather just bring it to a professional.
I don’t think I fit into the classical category that much because I don’t need to break everything down to understand that it works. I think more like if it works, it works, and if it doesn’t, bring it to someone to fix it.
Although I feel like I fit only into one category, I definitely think both ways are valid ways at looking at the world. Having two different ways of human understanding makes people different and therefore makes the world more interesting. Classical thinkers break everything down and think about it more in depth, while romantic thinkers just think about things as a whole. They both are valid and both get the job done.

Classical vs. Romantic

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the author divides up human understanding into classical and romantic. I feel that the classical perspective tends to break things down to it's foundation in order to truly understand its function while the romantic point of view bases its understanding on outside appearances, what they see. Romantic looks at feelings and actions while classical analyzes and dissects. Personally I think I can fall into both categories it just all depends on the situation. In school I am often taught in Math classes to think classically to get to a specific answer, but if I am given a creative piece to do for English I think romantically to write my best work. When I first meet people I may base the person off what I see right in front of me and as time goes by really try to find out what kind of person they are. Honestly I agree that both are valid ways at looking at the world and therefore both needed to understand what's around you. Both offer different points of view of the world like the right and left side of your brain. The left side of your brain deals with mostly logic and facts, while the right uses more feelings and imagination. You need both perspectives to help better understand this world even though at times one becomes more dominate.

Classic vs Romantic

I believe that a classical way of thinking is that you think of things in more of a technical way. A classical thinker would break things apart and figure out what gets connected to what and how it works. This would be like wondering how a computer works on the inside and what makes it be able to perform.

On the other hand, romantic thinking is more looking at something and taking it for what it is. This would be more looking at something and not really trying to figure out what it is made of, or what makes it work. Some one who was a romantic would look at a computer turn it on and not really ever think about what’s going on inside of it.

I personally feel that I look at things from a romantic’s perspective. When I see something technology related, I personally react as a romantic would. I don’t really care about why it’s doing what it is doing as long as it is happening. So if I sit down and turn on my computer, I don’t think about why its running or how its running, as long as it works.

I agree with the narrator, in that they are both valid ways of looking at the world but they dot really mix well. I feel this way because they sort of cancel each other out. No one really wants to break processes down as well as just wanting to see things for the way that they are.

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: classical and romantic. Those who fall into the classical category look at the underlying form of things. They break things down to the components rather than just looking at the surface. The romantic model is more creative and intuitive, leaving less room for precise technological mechanisms. I would categorize myself as a romantic. At first glance, I tend to look more at the surface of things rather than picking apart the components piece by piece. I look at things as a whole rather than individual systems. If something is not immediately appealing to me often times I will not give it a second thought. Jon Dutko is the perfect illustration of this tendency. If I took the time to dissect and break him down into components, I imagine he'd be an okay guy, but since I am not a classical thinker, I see him as the attention starved individual that he presents himself as, and that does not appeal to me. I prefer to look at the simple beauty of things, rather than scrutinizing each and every aspect of life. I agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” Classical thinking involves a more technological way of looking at things than romantic, but i don't believe that makes romantic thinking any less valid. I agree that the two cannot be brought together because once classical thinking kicks in and one begins breaking things down and looking for the underlying form, the basis of romantic thinking, creativity and imagination, are stripped from the thinker's mind and he becomes more focused on the science of whatever it is he is looking at rather than the artistic beauty of it. Similarly, if one wishes to view things as a romantic does, there is no room for the scientific breakdown that is the process of a classical thinker.

Classical v.s Romantic understanding

According to Phaedrus, classical understanding is one that relies on reason and law and tries to find the underlying form of things. On the other hand, romantic understanding is primarily concerned with the appearances of things and relies on senses, emotions, and esthetic conscience. This is not to say that a romantic is completely oblivious of underlying realities or that a classical person does not appreciate the form and beauty of things. The difference is rather in the emphasis and the point of view each takes looking at the world around them. I, for one, am a strong believer in the need to understand the world as the world really is. Whether we as individuals find the world and its contents pleasing or not is secondary to our understanding of how our world works. It is this working and the laws of this world that determine the reality of our existence. Looking at a situation or a problem, my first inclination is to see how the situation has come about or how it has developped; how the problem affects me is secondary. This is not to say that I am not concerned with the effects of the world or forms around me, but I am convinced that to change those forms I need to first understand them. I cannot change what is not pleasing to me without understanding the form as a whole first. I guess this would make me classical. I would find myself in greater agreement with the author concerning this dichotomy were it not for the importance that I attach to change. I believe that our place in this world is to both understand our environment and to be pleased or not to be pleased by our environment but also to take the extra step to change what needs to be changed and improve what needs to be improved. This requires both understandings: how somehing works, what purpose it serves, as well as its desirability.

Classical and Romantic

As the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance states, the classical mind sees what things are, breaking a thing down into parts and functions. The romantic mind sees what things mean, generally by looking at a thing as a whole. Take, for example, the old beer can that the narrator wanted to use as a shim: the classical mind sees the chemical composition of the metal which leads to its function as a shim while the romantic mind sees it as simply an old beer can. A classical understanding leads one to think in terms of components and small details while a romantic mind leads one to think of the larger picture.

As an artist, I have seen my work from both perspectives. When I am working on a painting, I consider the materials I am using and the composition of said materials, which will lead to the finished product having the desired colors and textures. However, I also take a figurative and literal step back from the work to consider what the piece as a whole will look like and, more importantly, what it represents.

I agree with the narrator that both classical and romantic understandings are valid ways of looking at the world. They are irreconcilable, however, because of the contrast of the viewpoints. One can’t think romantically and classically at the same time, simply because of the limits of the human brain. In the same way that a person can’t be in two places at once, a mind can’t be in two places at one time either.

classical vs romantic

as i see it classical thinking is a very scientific way of think. Seeing thing for what they are. Also the see thing for the straight facts and with a very clinical eye. They like to break thing apart and analysis what they see in front of them. Like know a remote control works because of the wires and signals inside not something like magic.

romantic thinking i think view things with personality and spirit and life even in inanimate objects. For example a house having a uplifting feel (or personality) or a spirit haunting you from it grave. It more of a creative and magical and given make believe story to pass of as reasoning for things in the world.

personally i think i think with a classical mind. I am no believer in spirits and ghost. i think that there are explanations for everything that happens. i just can except that thing just cant be explained.

I do agree with the statement that both are a good way to see the world but the clash and you must choice one way to see certain things in the world.

Classicism v. Romanticism

I must admit that I had difficulty answering this question. I wanted, at first, to be able to call myself a romantic thinker. It seems like a prestigious thing, to be able to look at the world with a mystical, artistic and altogether spiritual perspective. To be able to observe an object and to visualize a completely higher concept, to literally romanticize it, is certainly a skill whose possession I envy.

Try as I might, however, I have become disillusioned, and I believe that you will find that most of my peers share this jaded perspective. Certainly, as children, we were all romantics. Airplanes were the chariots of gods and rainbows were harbingers of the world's magic. We applied this mysticism to everything, too, and not merely the extraordinary. The world worked in ways that were, at once, unimaginable, inconceivable and absolutely, functionally coordinated.

As almost-adults, however, we educated masses have become disillusioned. We have learned the sciences of the Bernoulli Principle and electromagnetic wave refraction, and no longer are we cowed by airplanes or impressed by rainbows. By fully understanding a phenomenon, we remove from it that sense of mysticism and mystery. We lose the wonder that allows us to place a volcano or an automobile in the same mental space as fiction and folklore. Real life no longer captivates us when we can break it down into theories and laws.

Pirsig tells us that "both [Classicism and Romanticism] are valid ways of looking at the world while being irreconcilable with each other," and I agree. Both of these approaches are certainly valid, for it is possible to live as both a romantic and a classicist. However, it is also impossible to view something in both a Classical and a Romantic light. Once the laws governing an object have been classically divined, it is nigh impossible to return it to its romanticized state.

Classical vs. Romantic

Classical thinking consists of breaking things down. It deals with looking at a thing and dissecting it into multiple parts. A classical thinker is a thinker who traditionally focuses on the individual parts of a whole, and how those parts help to accomplish the goal of the whole. A romantic thinker will view an object a bit differently. The romantic thinker will look at the surface of an object and take it for what it is and not look a t the object's value past that. For me, how I look at an object really depends on that object. I see a car as a series of parts put together. The wheel connects to the cars axels, the axels turn the car, etc. However, the more complex something gets, the more I want to see it as just that object and nothing else. Perhaps it is my brain just saying "I don't get it!" but when I see something like an iPad, as Benny Schu mentioned, I just want to think "magic thingy that you can touch". I think I consider myself a classical thinker for things I can understand, and a romantic thinker for things I can't.  With the narrator, I agree that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." You cannot at the same time see one object as both classical and romantic. Once you see an object in terms of that "break down", you cannot simply see it on its surface, that is completely contradictory.

Classical vs. Romantic Thinking

According to the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are two ways of looking at the world, classically and romantically. To look at the world classically is to see things as more than they appear. You are able to take an object, any object, and break it up into its components. You can not only see this object for it's initial and obvious use, but for all types of uses. To think romantically is to see the the object, but to not think too much about it outside of its initial and obvious use. An example out of the book was when the narrator suggested his friend use a piece of beer can to make sure his handlebars stop sliding off. The narrator was thinking classically, breaking the beer can down to its components of being a made out of aluminum which rarely rusts or goes bad and would easily get the job done. However, the friend refused to think that a beer can could be used for anything more than just a beer can, thus his friend was thinking romantically. He saw the beer can as something that holds liquid, and was unable to break it up into its components.

I consider myself to be a classical thinker. Whenever I go on a backpacking trip, I have to pack my backpack. An important part about hiking is to pack as little as possible, but still being able to bring everything that you need. When I plan out what I have to bring I have to look at everything on my list classically, break this equipment down to their components, and see if I can possibly take things off my list and still be alright. For example, every trip I go on I bring a bandana with me. At first glance it looks like a piece of clothe. However, I am able to see it as a potential towel, a pillow, a bandage if someone requires first aid, a mark on a trail, pot holder, a simple camera cleaner, and a lot more. That's because I don't see the material as just a piece of clothe that can only be used to wrap around your head, but I see it as a tool that can be used for other potential tools. Thinking like this allows me to eliminate these objects from my list and makes my pack just that much lighter.

I agree with the narrator's statement that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” A person definitely has the ability to look at the world in both ways, but when it comes down to one topic, you are only going to to see it one way or the other, and not both. Thinking classically is the opposite of thinking romantically and it would be impossible to do both at the same time because they completely contradict each other. One person might not be able to see a bandana as a tool like I do, and a lot of times those people are going to overpack for the trip.

Classical vs. Romantic

In the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, our narrator distinguishes between two dichotomies: Classical and Romantic. A classical person is one who will "take apart," if you will, something. It can be an object or person, but they will disassemble it in order to understand each mechanism and its respective impact. A romantic person will simply look at the surface of an object or person, and not really give it much thought. A romantic person will, as the saying goes, judge a person by its cover.

We can be both classical or romantic, it really depends on our interests. It's not a matter of being one or the other. If I looked at something like, for instance, an iPad, I would look at it romantically. I would call it a worthless object and a waste of space. I see the iPad as having no real useful function.

If I am looking at something I find interesting however, I will look at it in a classic manner. Music, for example, is something I take a deep interest in. I will often find a new song which I take fascination to. After listening it for a while I will take it apart, dissect it, understand it. I will use "Stairway to Heaven" as an example. At first glance, people would perceive it as another rock song with the same old use of the four rock instruments: guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. But as I explored the song, I discovered that it also includes the use of four recorders, a twelve string guitar, and an electronic keyboard. Then I take it a step further. I look at the songs impact on music. How did it influence others? What sort of mythology and lore surrounds it? What impact does it have on music as a whole. What is the meaning of the song and what is its purpose? You might call me obsessed, but I'm merely thinking classically.

I agree with the narrator in the sense that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." Both ways of looking at something are polar opposites with one another. You can be both classic and romantic, but when it comes down to actually looking at something, you're going to interpret it one way or the other. You can't do it both ways. I can't say that a song like Stairway to Heaven is just another song when in reality I am fascinated by it.

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.