[MD] Why the quality of the modern world is no good.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha quotes Pirsig]
"Programs of a political nature are important end 
products of social quality that can be effective 
only if the underlying structure of social values is right." (ZMM)

[Arlo]
I think its more than just "programs of a 
political nature" that are impacted by social 
values. In ZMM, Pirsig juxtaposes this thought 
with "programs of an economic nature" (in this 
case, modes of production, labor).

"To speak of certain government and establishment 
institutions as "the system" is to speak 
correctly, since these organizations are founded 
upon the same structural conceptual relationships 
as a motorcycle. They are sustained by structural 
relationships even when they have lost all other 
meaning and purpose. People arrive at a factory 
and perform a totally meaningless task from eight 
to five without question because the structure 
demands that it be that way. There's no villain, 
no "mean guy" who wants them to live meaningless 
lives, it's just that the structure, the system 
demands it and no one is willing to take on the 
formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.

But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a 
government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle 
because it is a system is to attack effects 
rather than causes; and as long as the attack is 
upon effects only, no change is possible. The 
true system, the real system, is our present 
construction of systematic thought itself, 
rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down 
but the rationality which produced it is left 
standing, then that rationality will simply 
produce another factory. If a revolution destroys 
a systematic government, but the systematic 
patterns of thought that produced that government 
are left intact, then those patterns will repeat 
themselves in the succeeding government." (ZMM)

He further describes the effect of this, a 
general lack of "identity" in labor as follows. 
"The creator of it feels no particular sense of 
identity with it. The owner of it feels no 
particular sense of identity with it. The user of 
it feels no particular sense of identity with it. 
Hence, by Phædrus' definition, it has no Quality." (ZMM)

He also talks about the other end of labor, 
namely "consumption" and how this, too, is 
effected by the general SOM pervading ALL forms 
of this culture. "Along the streets that lead 
away from the apartment he can never see anything 
through the concrete and brick and neon but he 
knows that buried within it are grotesque, 
twisted souls forever trying the manners that 
will convince themselves they possess Quality, 
learning strange poses of style and glamour 
vended by dream magazines and other mass media, 
and paid for by the vendors of substance. He 
thinks of them at night alone with their 
advertised glamorous shoes and stockings and 
underclothes off, staring through the sooty 
windows at the grotesque shells revealed beyond 
them, when the poses weaken and the truth creeps 
in, the only truth that exists here, crying to 
heaven, God, there is nothing here but dead neon and cement and brick." (ZMM)

Finally, I have to say one thing. I am always a 
little taken aback when people here use the 
descriptor "artist" as if it should/does refer to 
some particular domain of human activity. Isn't 
the entire point of Pirsig's Metaphysics that 
"Art" is unjustly divorced from its rightful role 
in ALL human activity? Isn't the goal here to 
stop thinking of "art" as some special form of 
human activity and see that ALL forms of human 
activity are artful? Don't we just further this 
unjust distinction every time we refer to "art" this way?

For example, you asked "Do you think it is the 
role of the artist to make culture 
uncomfortable?". How is the role of the "artist" 
different from the role of the "teacher" or 
"craftsman" or "gardener" or "baseball player"? 
Isn't the very problem here that teachers, 
craftsman, gardeners and baseball players FORGOT 
that they, too, are artists? That "art" is the 
appearance of Quality revealed in ALL human 
activity? ("Art is high-quality endeavor. That is 
all that really needs to be said." (ZMM))

In this light, there is no "role of the artist". 
There is an intention to our activity, and 
whether or not the product of our activity is 
Quality (Art) depends on the manner we approach 
said activity. If your goal is to convey as 
message, perhaps the outcome is "art" or perhaps 
it is not. If your goals is a rotisserie, perhaps 
the outcome is "art" or it is not. If your goal 
is to challenge social norms, perhaps the outcome 
is "art" or perhaps it is not. You are not an 
"artist" who challenges cultural norms, you 
challenge cultural norms and strive to do so 
revealing Quality, and if you do then your challenge is "art".