[MD] What all is about.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
I was just reacting to Ham's stereotypical caricature of "scientists" 
getting in the way ...

[Arlo]
I'm with you, Ian, mate. But I'd venture to guess the only scientists 
Ham sees as "selling out" are those that favor some liberal 
conspiracy or another. Just as I'd bet the only "artists" Platt sees 
as pandering to fame are those that rifle Victorian sensibilities of 
"decency". From there it is an inevitable dissolution into another 
Waldorf and Statler routine about the "good ol' days".

But the underlying issue, they both touch on, is profound, and it is 
the core of ZMM's thesis. The fundamental problem facing our culture 
is not "punk rock" or "modern art" or "celebrity scientists", but the 
underlying S/O foundation that has cut Quality out of the dialogue. 
When Pirsig laments the transition from the mechanic-artist of his 
younger days, to the uninvolved mechanic-by-label-only of the (then) 
modern garage, he ascribes this to a collapse of "care", which he has 
said is a direct correlate of Quality. This alienation-from-Quality, 
witnessed throughout ZMM not only in labor but in all daily activity, 
is not only the root cause of the "scientist" or "artist" who sells 
out for celebrity and wealth, but more importantly for why as a 
society we have elevated celebrity and wealth to be the paramount 
ends-in-themselves of activity. In this sense, Arete is conflated 
with social-material success. This underscores the social darwinism 
of modern parlance. It is why we celebrify businessmen and heap 
riches on actors and musicians. It is why thugs sell platinum 
records, scientists sell their signatures to pharmaceuticals and 
politicians, and toys made with toxic chemicals end up in the hands 
of our children.

We no longer ask, "what is good and what is not good?". We ask only, 
"what will make us rich or famous, and what will not?"

And we mistakenly see the questions as synonymous.

Personally, like Pirsig I think, I see more to be gained by getting 
the mechanic to see the art in her/his work, to recapture his 
intellectual-aesthetic relationship with her/his labor, but the same 
metaphysical shift that would allow this, would also reorient the 
vision of the "scientist" and "artist" (as professional labels, not 
labels of activity**) towards this same end. By saying "there is 
something better than this, and that is found by looking towards the 
knowledge, wisdom and art we produce and not the material successes 
of celebrity and wealth".

** I make that distinction, here, because I would venture that a true 
reading of ZMM would dissolve the notions of "scientist" and "artist" 
(as Platt had suggested), and also incorporate their essence into all 
labor. In this true ZMM sense, the mechanic _IS_ a scientist-artist, 
as is the plumber, the painter, and the candlestick maker. (For an 
interesting account of the Everyman-as-Scientist, check out the 
People's History of Science).