Decontructing "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

Classicism and Romanticism: Opposing Realms of Consciousness or Consituents of Quality?
by Anna Chan

Page 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | endnotes | bibliography

This rather anarchistic view of science is also, surprisingly, shared by Feyerabend, who, in his book Against Method, writes, "The history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those who invented them." (endnote 23) In his argument for "counter-induction" versus "induction" (scientific method), people are more willing to accept hypotheses that favor existing theories than those that disagree. (endnote 24) This is quite obvious since a hypothesis that refutes a well-established theory will endanger the theorizing scientist's accomplishment and, in turn, ego (given that the scientist is still available to see the demolition of his expertise). It is also a great hassle for society, since textbooks need to be rewritten, school curricula modified, and applications to the theory reconsidered. In other words, "society and progress (technology) are actually hindrances "to the progress of true science." (endnote 25) Thus, 'true' science isn't classical. The "success" of science is "not because [the ideology] agrees so well with the facts...it is successful because not facts have been specified that could constitute a test, and because some such facts have even been removed." Since it is man's decision to stick to particular ideas and discard others, it is obvious why Feyerabend boldly declares that scientific progress is "entirely man-made." (endnote 26)

With all these arguments for and against the categorizing of our world into classic and romantic, there seems to be no conclusion, no right nor wrong. Barzun points out that "Romanticism is not a revolt from Reason, a reaction against scientific method, a rejection of artistic conventions, movement back to nature.... It is not any of these things for the simple reason that none of them can be found uniformly distributed among the great romanticists." He suggests that this was the reason why the classicists "abuse romanticism all the more for not yielding up its secret on first inspection." (endnote 27)

Now the question is: Why does a stalemate exist? Why is there so much overlapping between the two modes of reality? It is interesting to note that Pirsig once wrote about the controversy between the two divisions as "a house divided against itself," which means that classicism and romanticism, in fact, originate from one entity (endnote 28). It is the same concept behind the fact that romantics and classicists "are not separate zoological species, but recurring varieties of human beings, distinguished from one another by the relative value they place on certain attitudes." (endnote 29) Notably, a value system is involved, and hence Pirsig rightfully calls this entity Quality.

Quality, though comprehensible, is virtually undefinable. Our comprehension of Quality relies on our perception of reality, which is where classical and romantic fit in. The following are diagrams Pirsig provided to illustrate our unconscious vision of reality. (endnote 30) The first diagram illustrates the first argument that all reality is divided into classic and romantic:

The second diagram shows our current mode of thought on reality:

Page 5 of 6

Return to Top | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | endnotes | bibliography