[MD] Arlo

[John Carl]

Arlo,


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
wrote:

> [John]
> Well clearly I was being ironic.  I don't think that differentiaion is bad.
>
> [Arlo]
> Who said "differentiation is bad"? What you're doing is the reductio ad
> absurdum, by suggesting that because Pirsig sought to fuse classical and
> romantic modes of thinking (the result of SOM) into one, that ALL forms of
> difference (e.g. you suggested "night and day" and "male and female") are
> useless.
>
>
Jc: When I said I don't think differentiation is bad, I was referring to my
ironic comment, not construing your argument to mean that "all
differentiation is bad"   It seems to me that you just think the art
differentiation is bad.



>
> [John]
> Just to be clear, Arlo, are you saying the concept "art" ought to be
> eliminated?
>
> [Arlo]
> "Art" is high-quality endeavor. I've said this repeatedly. Why would you
> suggest I want to "eliminate" the concept? "Art" suffers under the
> classic/romantic schism, and, like Pirsig, I hold that uniting these
> RESCUES 'art'.
>
>
Jc:  I agree, but in order to rescue art, don't we need to conceptualize
and differentiate art?



> [John]
> You think that would make everybody more artistic in their academic and
> and economic production?
>
> [Arlo]
> Like Pirsig, I think expanding the concept of "art" to apply equally to
> motorcycle repair and painting make all forms of human activity potentially
> better. Yes, I think both academics and business professionals benefit from
> an understanding that unites (classical) 'science' and (romantic) 'art'.
>
>
Jc:  When you eliminate distinction, you eliminate being.  including
artistic caring, to technical endeavor, is not removing art or the
distinction, it's ADDING, something else, to the understanding of
technique.    It seems to me that you have missed the point of Pirsig's
word, by ciipping out and applying your own meaning.



> [John]
> You really think it would help us if we just eliminated all art classed,
> and then remove the name so we won't miss it?
>
> [Arlo]
> Again, this is absurd. But, on the level of terminology, why not rename
> 'art classes' to just say the activity? "Painting 101", "An Introduction to
> Sculpture", "Music in the Middle Ages". Then we could have classes like
> "The Art of Painting", "The Art of Rhetoric", "The Art of Rationality",
> "The Art of Motorcycle Repair".
>
> But, here, I suggest you read Doorly. And Ant has already given you
> Doorly's way of approaching the terminology.
>
>
Jc:  Probably good advice, but my reading stack is already high.  First
off, I believe classes ARE called "Painting 101 and "Drawing 2" but they
are in a section of compus called the art department.  So in a way, you are
advocating the elimination of the art department.  Shame!  Wait til I
inform your colleagues!



> [John]
> Since sculpture is the same as rotisserie assembly and motorcycle
> maintenance, then we don't need separate terms so lets just call it all
> what it is.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sculpting with clay, assembling a rotisserie, and repairing a motorcycle
> require both domain specific knowledge and an awareness that the patterns
> you are working on are in harmony with yourself and everything else. You
> continue to suggest that by uniting classical and romantic separations that
> anyone can do anything.



Jc:  Specifically, what I'm doing is splitting, not uniting.  I'm splitting
the level called "intellect"  Into two, so that it includes art at the 4th
level but as a different "thing"  For intellectual mind analyzes and
artisitic mind imagines new conceptions to be, analyzed and they work in
concert and are different things.

And I think artistic imagination can be taught.  It's not, very much, but
it can be.  At least it must be admitted into the academy.  If it's got no
chair, then how can it contribute to the discussion?

Arlo:


> Expertise derives from care, which derives from both an understanding of
> the historically accumulated knowledge on that activity AND an
> appreciation/awareness of immediate Quality. In LILA terms, you need BOTH
> static and Dynamic Quality.
>
>
I agree that DQ/SQ is a balancing act, and that art and intellect
correspond somewhat.  DQ/SQ is how the world is.  Art/Intellect is how we
relate to it.

Thanks Arlo,

John