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

[MarshaV]

At 12:41 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>[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?

I agree with you.  I paint.



>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"?

I asked because of the Fischl interview, not 
because that is what I thought.  I paint.


>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))

Sorry, but I agree.



>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".

I strive for quality.

I don't see any disagreement here.  Maybe we can disagree somewhere else.



Marsha







_____________

"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)