Quality Reading
What I am is a heretic who’s recanted, and thereby in everyone’s eyes saved his soul. Everyone’s eyes but one, who knows deep down inside that all he has saved is his skin.
I survive mainly by pleasing others. You do that to get out. To get out you figure out what they want you to say and then you say it with as much skill and originality as possible and then, if they’re convinced, you get out. If I hadn’t turned on him I’d still be there, but he was true to what he believed right to the end. That’s the difference between us, and Chris knows it. And that’s the reason why sometimes I feel he’s the reality and I’m the ghost.
Great stuff. This book is a reread for me. I picked it up sometime in my teens. The book meanders pleasantly across the history of philosophy, hitting some very critical points as it justifies the «insane» notion that there is a Quality, or Virtue (I think the Taoists would call it Te) that precedes dialectic. Pirsig consciously resurrects the Sophists and strikes out at the values of a society ruled by pure reason.
I thought it beautiful the way that Pirsig simultaneously demonsatrated the fallacy and utility of duality. He showed that a motorcycle is made up not only of parts, but of systems and subsystems that provide interrelated functions. It’s important and necessary to see a gear’s relation to the drivetrain, but a drivetrain is not an item that one can find at the automotive parts store. These are artificial boundaries that allow us to encapsulate certain chains of events and see things functioning or malfunctioning. Dualism is hated by those that love a valueless life and espoused by those that see values as limits. Very few people seem to see it as a useful and valuable creation of the human imagination.
And of course there are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary arithmatic and those who don’t.
Reading this book now feels almost as though I’m coming full circle. When I first read it I didn’t understand the fear of losing myself, only the fear of being seen as insane. Now that I’m trying very hard to rediscover my own Quality, after spending so many years concerned only with what others think of me, I can see the way out of the trap that Pirsig presents instead of seeing the trap as a desirable technique. Say what they want you to say, or else face electroshock therapy. Being sixteen and watching friends get carted off «to get the help they need» was enough to teach me the lesson that this book rebels against: Keep your mouth shut and for gods sake don’t let anyone find out what you really are.
Reading ZATAOMM now I hear a different lesson: you’ve wasted thirty-five years, don’t let the rest go to the dogs.
“there are 10 kinds of
“there are 10 kinds of people ” reminds me of the joke about why programmers have so much trouble differentiating between Christmas and Halloween. They know that Dec 25 = Oct 31.
Dad
I have a copy of Lila by
I have a copy of Lila by Pirsig which I haven’t found time to read yet. I may reread ZMM again first. ZMM is subtitled “An Inquiry into Values.” Lila is “An Inquiry into Morals.” He has also co-authored “Lila’s Child, An Inquiry into Quality” which has been panned pretty badly. I have been looking forward to Lila as this time the journey is on a sailboat. However, my recollection of ZMM was that Pirsig really didn’t say as much as it sounded. He puts the words together beautifully, though, and if one hasn’t studied philosophy you might think he is a brilliant thinker. I think he is a great writer. Sort of the Carl Sagan of astronomy.
Dad
Of course, I meant “the Carl
Of course, I meant “the Carl Sagan of philosophy.” Lots of style but not necessarily rigorous science.
Dad
Yeah, I knew that’s what you
Yeah, I knew that’s what you meant.
I think you’re right. What Pirsig did with ZAMM was clarify and make palatable some historical ideas. He made some attempt to reconcile some seemingly incompatible ideas and I think he made some valuable conjecture about “what was really meant” but there wasn’t very much new there at all. As I wrote, I think he did a great job of illuminating dualism. He also made the debate over non-Euclidean geometry relevant, where I’d always found it to be academic.
I just started rereading
I just started rereading ZMM. I am enjoying it a lot. I take issue with some of his rhetoric, though, such as claiming that the law of gravity did not exist until Newton discovered it. What held everything together before? And comparing mathematics to indian ghost spirits???? Saying they are equally real??? I am not arguing that the indians didn’t TRULY believe in spirits, simply that believing in them doesn’t necessarily make them real.
Dad