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?

Blog Response

The real distinction on classic and romantic thinking is how much and what kind of meaning is applied. In my opinion, a romantic can look at a piece of art, although I realize how unfair of an example this is, and wonder about what kind of emotion the art is trying to capture or what kind of story the artist is trying to tell with the colors. A classical thinker would think about what kind of colors were mixed together and what kind of base was used to mix the paints.

I would say I am a classical thinker. I like breaking things down in ways that are easier for me to process. For example I am a big list maker. To use the going to the beach question earlier I would be making a list of things I would need to get through the whole trip and not just the fun parts. For projects I like doing them one part at a time so that it can all make up a whole project. In my opinion looking at the meaning of things is kind of counter productive because one opinion is just as good as the other because everyone's mindset is different and equally valid to them so what is the point in arguing. A classically fueled world would be an efficient and productive one but it would be devoid of life.

Romantic and Classical Methods of Thought

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig distinguishes between the two thought processes by implying that Classical thinkers are more literal and tend to think more scientifically and rationally. Romantics on the other hand, tend to see what is in front of them and think of things more imaginatively or intuitively.
I have issues placing myself within either realm of thinking. I possess some classical qualities; I try to think rationally and realistically in most respects. I examine every outcome and possibility, almost to a fault. I love cars and I want to learn more about the mechanics and maintenance of them. However, I am not a scientific person. I have little patience for things like physics and chemistry. Despite my slight classical leanings, I find the classical way of thinking rather harsh and unfeeling.
I also have some Romantic qualities. I am fairly imaginative and often act on instinct. I love the way that some things are always changing and how things can be altered through simple means. I feel that putting too much thought into things often takes the beauty and fun out of like. Though I am a rational thinker, U realize that the best outcome frequently happen because of irrational decisions. I prefer to work through my emotions or instincts rather than with data, like in math and science. I am forever fascinated by the way that things like novels, politics and historical events can be interpreted and discussed, instead of being concrete answers with no sway.
Pirsig says that "both and valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." I completely and utterly disagree. I think it's incredibly foolish to think that people can be separated into two groups. No one would fit entirely into one group and if by some bizarre chance they did, they would lose out on the basics of beauty, be it scientific, superficial or emotional. Furthermore, if humans could be separated as such, they would not be irreconcilable, they would complement each other. Examples of this can be found in every day actions, like cooking. Cooking has a chemistry like quality to it, with processes and specific ingredients, yet by thinking creatively and intuitively, one can completely alter the dish. Basically, I think that everything, from actions to objects to people, have a bit of "classical thinking," a bit of "romantic thinking" and a hell of a lot of in between in them.

Blog Response 5: Romanticism vs Classicism

According to Pirsig, a person understands the world in one of two ways. He is either a classical thinker who subdivides systems and searches for underlying form, or a romantic thinker who acts based on intuition and emotions. Classical thinkers rely on rationality, logic, and--more often then not--science, to understand the world and solve problems. Romantic thinkers solve problems and perceive their world based on emotion and instinct. Pirsig asserts that romantic thinkers consider what an object is, while classical thinkers consider what an object means. Essentially this means that romantic thinkers operate based on how experiences make them/others feel, while classical thinkers contemplate the rational implications of an experience.

I think I am a romantic thinker, although I often show classical tendencies. I frequently make lists and compartmentalize experiences, which is a classical inclination, but ultimately I am most focused on emotions and instincts and feelings. While romanticism has often been condemned as the “shallow” brand of thinking, I think romantic thinkers are just those who operate on instinct and place import on emotions rather than logic. My favorite painting is called “The Singing Butler”, and I could not for the life of me write a paper on why I like it so much. My love for the painting is not any less valid than anyone else’s; it is simply founded feelings rather than reasoning.

So, having said that, I do think both ways of looking at the world are valid. I wouldn’t say they are “irreconcilable with each other” because I think everyone inevitably has classical and romantic tendencies. They are only irreconcilable when the visual is pitted against the logical, when art is pitted against science, when feelings are pitted against reasoning. When this happens, of course, we must choose which type of understanding to follow. However, there are lots of circumstances in which our romantic and classical senses work together. I don’t think the romantic thinker is necessarily opposed to the mental knife which subdivide systems, just as I don’t think the classical thinker is necessarily opposed to doing what feels right or what is visually appealing. If you like a car because it's exciting, attractive, fast, safe, efficient, and feels right, your classical and romantic understandings aren’t working against each other, but with each other.

Romantic/Classical Understanding

Robert Pirsig divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. A romantic understanding is the shallower of the two, and sees the world only by its immediate surface or appearance. A classical understanding is the deeper of the two, and sees the world as an “underlying form itself”, or as something whose true meaning can be found below the initial appearance.

I myself can relate to both the romantic and classical understandings of the world. In my opinion, or at least for me, the two go hand in hand. One of my favorite types of cars to spot on the street is an Audi convertible. I find those Audis to be some of the nicest looking vehicles on the market. My physical attraction towards Audis shows a romantic understanding. However at the same time, I am also aware of the fact that the looks to car aren’t always everything. The speed, handling, and internal endurance of a car are as equally important. It’s never wise of the driver of an Audi convertible to laugh at a 1990 Honda Accord with chipped paint pulling up beside him at a traffic light. Just a moment later when that light turns green, that Accord could easily rev it’s engine into overdrive and hit 60 miles per hour in three seconds leaving the shiny convertible in the dust. I witnessed this exact event on Wisconsin Avenue last week, and it gave me a good laugh. The Honda Accord owner keeps his car’s engine and other internal mechanisms in tip top shape while not worrying as much about it’s immediate appearance. He displays a perfect example of the classical understanding. When the time comes for me to own, design, and tweak my own car, I will remember the Honda Accord driver and keep in mind the fact that my car’s external appearance is not everything.

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.” While I do agree that both classical and romantic understanding are both valid ways to view the world, I disagree that they are irreconcilable with each other. As I said before, I believe that there are many cases in which the two go hand in hand. To name an example, when someone is attracted to someone else, that may mean that they find the other person to be physically attractive, or that they may find their personality to be attractive. Seeing the other person only by their physical attractiveness would be viewing them solely through a romantic understanding. Taking the attractiveness of their personality into account would be viewing them through a classical understanding. In many cases, one will see another as attractive through both their physical and personality traits. So while it is definitely possible to see parts of our lives through only one of the understandings, it is not impossible for the two of them to overlap.

C Major or C-E-G

Classical understanding focuses on reasoning and logic, with the end goal being to come to a factual, objective conclusion about the concept or object in question. For example, if a classically-minded person were to hear a C major chord being played, they might think of the individual notes that make up that chord, and thus define the chord in terms of its components. After hearing the chord, they would come to the ultimate conclusion that a C major consists of a C, E, and G. However, little thought would be given to how the chord as a whole, or even the individual notes, actually sound. On the other hand, someone of romantic understanding might here the C major chord and consider its sound and texture. They might think about the emotions implied by the chord. They would likely consider the C chord as a whole and pass some form of judgment on it, but fail to find its underlying form. This is because romantic understanding deals with far more subjective observations, such as appearances and emotions.

Personally, I am a romantic thinker, but by no choice of my own, or at least by no conscious choice. I have always viewed the world through the lens of my emotions. Rather than my emotions clouding what I see, they actually become, or define, what I see. If a motorcycle looks cool, than to me its definition is no longer "an automotive vehicle with two in-line wheels" or even "a cool automotive vehicle with two in-line wheels." That motorcycle's definition is simply: "cool." It's not that I think that more factual definitions are of less value, they're just not what come to mind as I go through life.

I agree with the idea that "both [classical and romantic understanding] are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." Dissecting somethings underlying form is just as legitimate as realizing how that thing makes you feel. However, while equally legitimate, the two concepts are largely incompatible because what it comes down to is this: classical understanding, contradicting the popular aphorism, stipulates that "the whole is equal to the some of its parts." Romantic understanding ignores the individual "parts" all together.

Alex

Romantic Vs Classical

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence, Robert Pirsig puts everyone in to one of two categories: the classical perspective or the romantic perspective. The classical outlook is very concerned with underyling form; how something works, why it does what it does. It's seeing a clear blue sky and thinking of reflecting light waves. The romantic view is more about emotions and how something is to your senses. The classical view is analogous to science while the romantic view is analogous to art. The author also states that these two views are irreconcilable.
If Mr Pirsig forced me to chose to be in a category, I guess I'd choose classical. I really like knowing how things work. The show "How It's Made" is basically a Dodge clan ritual. I like knowing the background information of authors, painters, photographers, etc. I find computers endlessly frustrating because I have no idea how they work. I'm open to the whole blue sky/light waves train of thought, even on a much harsher scale, like the possibility that love is a chemical reaction instead of the whole Cinderella, sparks flying shebang.
But I take two issues with Robert Pirsig's way of categorizing people. One, humans just don't split like that. No one is all one way 100% of the time, not because we're each individual and unique snowflakes or whatever, we're just not consistent like that. It's the whole "Can people be all good or all evil?" conversation. I just don't think so. There's a reason why shades of gray exist, why things like the Likert scale (the questionnaire, 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree') and Kinsey scale (sexual orientation scale) exist. Very few people completely fit into a category.
Two, rather than thinking that the views are irreconcilable, I think they depend on each other. I belly dance and while dance leans towards the romantic view point, the steps, which would be classical, are just as important to the beauty of the dance as my costume or the vibe I'm giving off when I dance. Yeah, rainbows are refracted light. They're still beautiful. I don't think understanding the science behind something takes away from it's beauty.
Also, I think you can find asthetic, romantic beauty in classical things like science and vice versa. For example, in Chemistry we learned about Benzene this year. Benzene is an organic compound, C6H6. And to be honest, I don't understand anything from that class but I think the structure of benzene (it's a symmetrical ring of alternating double and single bonds, it looks like this: http://www.chemgapedia.de/vsengine/media/vsc/en/ch/12/oc/aromaten/aromaten/struktur/benzolschreibweisegif.gif) is really, really pretty. It looks like a snowflake to me. An even better, more universal example of this is this article, http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/alcohol-is-microscopically-beautiful-bif, titled "Alcohol is Microscopically beautiful" and it has pictures of what alcohol looks like under a microscope and it is beautiful.
So I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but my point is that people don't classify like Mr Pirsig thinks they do and the two categories that he deems "irreconcilable" actually have a lot in common.

Romantic vs Classical

Although, both classical and romantic modes of understanding share the same quality in which they are defined as categories of perceiving and comprehending information, their own definition/identity is quite different. The different ways that one understands/comprehends information is the underlying definition of these categories. An individual who understands information at a classical level comprehends information that proceeds from reason and law, is straightforward and predominated by facts. Personally, the classical category is more of a researcher/scientist or research bases professions way of understanding information as it aids to the individuals who need evidence to prove an idea, not taking a leap of faith. On the other hand, romanticism takes into account the individual’s feelings, emotions, and outward appeal.

Personally, I feel I fit into both categories but classical more than romanticism. I fit into the classical category more as I see myself questioning (in certain subjects especially math and psychology) why a theorem, equation and piece of information is true. In psychology, although a textbook may say that high school students need more sleep as it effects their grades, I personally need factual evidence, research and studies to be shown to me before I will take into account that indeed high school student’s sleep effects grades. On the other hand, I see myself take in information at a romantic level, concerned with the outward appeal than the inside. When I see an individual or a new student I first see them at a romantic level, concerned with how they look. But as I begin to get to know them I take a deeper look and evaluate at a deeper level. I think some high school students are among this same category as they are concerned with the outward/physical appeal and their emotions that they feel of first seeing the individual is how they perceive them until they get to know them.

I do agree with the quote “both are valid ways of looking at the world irreconcilable with each other.” I think it is not wrong to look at the world from either direction both cannot be compared with one another as they conflict in their definition (one factual bases and the other feeling/appearance based). I believe that an individual could look at the world with an area of gray with both of these ways in mind and it is important to consider other ways of understanding and perceiving information as well.

Response 5

The romantic outlook focuses on the more superficial aspects of an object. It is more oriented to feelings and emotions, and is very subjective. For instance, this assignment, classifying the two is not very romantic, because they would say it all depends on the person. The classic view looks at the "underlying form", or the deeper, analytic side to something. The classic view looks at the components, and is more factual and objective. Organization is a connotation of the classic view, so something like sorting people into classic and romantic is a very classic thing to do.

I would not consider myself to be the epitome of either side, but I definitely think I'm inclined to the classic side of things. I find I like sorting things into lists and categories like a typical classic person would do. When I study I need everything to be sorted into it's correct group for it to make sense before I can learn it well. I make lists of reasons why, for instance, Germany unified under Prussia instead of Austria, and compare the two, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. I also find that I view art classically. At art museums I tend to walk quickly through because it all looks the same to me. However, when I know the history and background of a painting, I can spend much more time looking at it and appreciating it, as I now know the "underlying form". My interest isn't peaked just by the superficial appearance.

That is not to say that I lack any romantic aspects in my life whatsoever. The two classifications are not irreconciliable as the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance thinks they are. The classification of these two types is purely classical in the first place. A romantic probably would not see the same schism in human nature, and might consider themselves to have some classical features too. Even though the narrator protests that it cannot happen, a classic can definitely have romantic moments. When I look at flowers or a beautiful view I appreciate the superficial beauty. The classic view is at the very core romantic. To be a true classic, a person would have to go around looking at life as if it were just a bunch of molecules interacting, which doesn't explain things like love and friendship. I highly doubt that anyone always thinks like that.

BLOG POST 5: The Classical vs. Romantic Mode of Understanding

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. Briefly articulate the distinction between the two. Then, explore how you fit into either of these dichotomies. Give examples that illustrate the tendencies that make you, personally, either classical and/or romantic. Conclude by discussing if you agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” (Chap. 7—a few pages in)

POST DUE: Wednesday, May 11th by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, May 13th by the start of class.