GRADING FOR BLOG POST 5 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 5 (ON CLASSIC/ROMANTIC UNDERSTANDING) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS 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.

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 reconcilable, suggesting that they 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 v. Romantic

Looking at life through the classical lens will give you a very different view than you will get through the romantic lens. I think the biggest difference is that the romantics focus on outward appearance while the classics delve deeper to look at the details and inner workings. Another big difference is that the romantics are creative, inspirational, and emotional which is very different from the classics' focus on facts and reason.

I think I am probably a mix of the two. I tend to make snap judgements of people based on their outward appearances and I can get very emotional, which suggest I am a romantic. But I also like to make lists and weigh the pros and cons before making a decision, which falls under the classic category.

I do not agree that the two are "irreconcilable with each other" as Pirsig claims. I find that I exhibit traits that fall under both perspectives and I am a fully-functioning human being. If the two were irreconcilable then I would probably have a very hard time since I am right in between them.

In Response to Daniel Leung's "Romantic v. Classical"

I really like you your analysis and find it interesting, especially when you say that "a romantic looks at the surface of things. They are concerned only with outward appearance." However, I feel that you may have taken the words "look" and "appearance" too literally, causing you to gloss over the emotional aspect of the romantic perspective. Also, I feel that a classically-minded person does not "go beyond the surface," but rather fails to see (or appreciate) the surface, similar to the way in which a romantically-minded person fails to see underlying form.

In Response to Will's "Classical v. Romantic"

I thought you made an extremely good point when you said that although the classical and romantic perspective are incompatible, "humans use both of these to govern their lives." Despite their inherent contradictions, both perspectives are widely used.

However, I agree with Zoe in her critique of your toy metaphor. I think that a classically minded person would be likely to view a toy differently than a romantically-minded person (in terms of what the toy actually is), but neither would necessarily view the toy as unnecessary (although purely sentimental value might be ignored by the classical thinker). To me, getting rid of a toy is more of a distinction to be made between a stoic and an epicurean than between someone of a classical perspective and someone of a romantic perspective.

Romantic vs. Classical

In my view, the difference between romantic and classical thinking is the difference between judging an experience based on how it makes you feel versus what really happened. Judging experience based on feelings is the romantic approach. Judging experience based on what really happened is the classical approach. I think that everybody thinks in both classical and romantic ways depending on the situation. For example, the more you have a technical understanding of a particular situation, the more likele it is that you will evaluate your experiences in a classical way. On the other hand, if you find yourself in a situation where you have very little technical understanding of what's going on, you're more likely to evaluate your experience just based on how it makes you feel.
I know this to be true in my own experience. For example, when I'm watching sporting events where the game is won that I have played competitively, I am aware of the mechanics involved in each play. I make a point of watching all the professional soccer that I can fit in when a great goal is scored or a save is made, I tend to see exactly the mechanics of the play and take it apart piece by piece in my mind. I also find myself becoming elated by a great play, which is the romantic view. In contrast, when my mom makes me go to an art gallery and I look at the paintings or sculptures, I don't fully understand how what I'm looking at was created. As a result, my evaluation of what I see is limited to how a work of art impresses me. I know that this is really just a personal point of view, either I like it or I don't, it's funny or it's not, it's beautiful or it's not. I have no clue how difficult it was to create, how long it took, or what materials were required. I am unable to think about works of art in a classical way because I don't have a technical understanding.

Classical vs Romantic

A person of the romantic understanding views the world partially, from their personal view point. They describe things in relation to themselves (feelings, opinions, etc.) not in scientific measurements. A person of the classical understanding views the world completely unemotionally, objectively, directly, and without adornment. A romantic would see the outward and obvious surface of an object or result of an idea, whereas a classical thinker would see the hidden, underlying idea behind the result/resulting surface. For example, a romantic thinker would describe a piece of music as smooth, choppy, marvelous, horrible, moving, flat, or something to that effect. A classical thinker would simply state which notes had which type of hertz and resonance, no personal emotion or opinion because a person is not a part of the piece, so neither is their comment or opinion. Similarly, if a romantic thinker were to see a computer breakdown and begin to spark (I don’t even know if computers do that, but just go with it) they would say the computer is broken, everything is on fire! A classical thinker would say the cpu/monitor/insert specific computer part here is on fire, something must have caused the malfunction, other parts are fine, then they would systematically (using the scientific method) figure out the problem and a solution. Romantics see the whole, while classicists see the intricate parts that form the overall core idea. I’m going to be in the probably large group of people saying I’m not sure which type of thinker I am. I am pretty sure I am in the exact middle, with a little bit of both. For example, when I see a baseball pitcher pitch, I’m not only impressed with how fast the ball goes or how much the ball moves, but also by the very fact that the art of moving a sphere at considerably high speeds (by high speeds I mean as fast or faster than a car speeding on a highway), propelled by only a human body from rest has been mastered, but also that there is a whole system specifically made to do so. When I see a person dance, I’m not only impressed by the grace or beauty of the motions, but also by the fact that the human brain, skeleton, and muscle structure are able to produce such results. When I see a flower, I see the physical beauty, and the beauty of the functional parts that allow the flower to come to life (the complex array of roots, the systems expertly evolved to move water and sugars throughout the whole plant, even against gravity, etc). I could go on, but I’d probably just bore you, so I hope you got my point. Or got something from this long entry.

Romantic vs. Classical

Obviously we use both in our daily lives.
A classical thinker sees the world primarily as underlying from itself, while a romantic thinker sees the world primarily in terms of immediate appearance. The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, and intuitive, where feelings rather than facts predominate. Art is seen as romantic as it does not proceed by reason or laws, but by feeling, intuition, and esthetic conscience. The classic mode, by contrast proceeds by reason and laws which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. Having these two types of thinkers in the world makes life interesting, because as we all know life would be pretty boring if everyone was the same. We need different kinds of people in this world to provide us with different viewpoints to give us perspective. I am a Romantic thinker with Classical undertones. I look at everything in terms of loveliness, and everything is lovely in it's own way, from the proper perspective. However, everything has it's technical side to be concidered as well. Some things i regard more in Classical mode, others in Romantic. And there are some things i view in each at different times, or even both at once.

romantic versus classical

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. Classical understanding is based more on a logical/factual view of human understanding whereas romantic understanding focuses more on creative/artistic understanding.

When comparing romantic and classical reasoning I would definitely say that I tend to be more classical. I would describe myself as classical because I tend to only see the factual informational first, meaning I see only what is directly in front of my and use that directly as my understanding. An example of my classical understanding is my many field trips to the National Art Museum. Over the years, especially throughout elementary and middle school I took many field trips to the National Art Museum. However every time I went to the museum I could never seem to “appreciate” the various art forms to their fullest potential because I failed to use romantic understanding when viewing the art. Often times I only saw what was directly in front of me and based my understanding off of what I saw.

I definitely agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” I believe so because if we failed to view the world through a classical understanding we may not have been able to enact famous war strategies such as D-Day. Also if we failed to have romantic understanding we may not have been able to enjoy some of today’s classic paintings such as “Mona Lisa Smile” and “The Last Supper.”

Romantic v. Classical

Robert Pirsig divides human understanding into the two categories of romantic and classical. A romantic looks at the surface of things. They are concerned only with the outward appearance. A classic person looks beyond the outward appearance. They go beyond the surface and look at the underlying form.

I personally can relate to both the romantic and classical understanding. A prefect example of this is how I look at cars. I really like a good looking car. A car that is polished and glimmers in the sun looks better than an old, rusty car. This attraction to the outward appearance shows a romantic understanding, as I am only looking at and am concerned only with how the car looks on the surface. But, in addition to the look of the car, I am also conerned with other factors such as the durability, handling, and speed. If I use my classical side, the polished, attractive car is not necessarily better than the old, rusty car. Through my classical understanding, I look beyond what is on the outside of the cars. I look deeper and analyze all the parts and components of the cars. If the old car has a kept up engine while the polished car has a bad engine, this would make the old car better since a good engine represents good handling and speed. By not minding the outward appearance and looking only at the inner parts of the car, I display the classical understanding.

Pirsig states that both the classical and romantic understandings of the world are both"valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." I disagree with this statement. While I do agree that romantic and classical understandings are valid ways to view the world, I don't agree that they are irreconcilable. In fact, I think the two work well together and that most people display some of both. Just like in the above example of me with cars, I display both classical and romantic understandings. Besides just being romantic by looking the the appearance of the car on the outside, I also am classical when I look further into the car and at parts and components that make it up. I think that there are some cases where people are only romantic or only classical, but it is not impossible for someone to display some of both.

Classical v. Romantic

The fundamental difference between a Classical way of viewing the world and a Romantic way of viewing the world is that a Classical way of viewing the world is purely scientific and objective, while a romantic view is all purely emotional and subjective. The two are not at all compatible because they directly contradict each other. Despite this, humans use both of these to govern their lives.

People only like to admit to looking at the world in a classical way, especially in western cultures where it is associated with intellect. When push comes to shove though, every decision people make is influenced by romantic thinking. For example, when someone might keep a toy from their youth in their attic because it has sentimental value. The toy serves no practical use, so from a classical point of view, it's unnecessary to have.

Everyone thinks with some combination of classical and romantic views, varying from person to person. I myself probably lean more to the romantic side than most, although that is me personally. I'm still largely a classical thinker though because if I wasn't I wouldn't believe in science and would see no point in the universe. There is definitely an inherent contradiction here that I will not pretend doesn't exist. As irrational as it is though, I and every other person chooses to live with this contradiction and not question it because it ultimately makes my life the happiest. Do I sound like an Epicurean?