This book in my view is an enjoyable read but annoyingly without footnotes/ references which makes philosophical analysis so much harder.
I saw shades of Melville's Moby Dick, Heidegger’s Being and Time
and postmodernism.
The whole book on my view might be regarded as a response to the
Koan albeit with some modifications:
And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Do we ask anyone to tell us these things?
Noting Koans are not necessarily meant to be solved as they cann be can be parodoxical statments that focus the mind in a non rational intutive mediative mode.
They can provide one with the answer, over time, but the rtionale is to beak free from mundane anlytics and expernce enligtenment in the Zen Buddhist tradition.
What I liked and my thoughts on his
Odyssey.
Possibly a candidate to become an enduring classic and embracing
ethical values as is appropriate to our technological age. As he sees lacking a
dynamic societal response such as could be applied in consideration of his
‘quality’ metaphysics.
His approach to writing for me bears a resemblance to
Melville’s epic ‘Moby Dick’, notwithstanding the latter is of a bygone era.
Call me Ismael is the Narrator alongside periodic entries by Captain Ahab,
punctuated with enormous detail on whaling versus details a similar literary
style of Persigs philosophical probing laced with his motorcycle
maintenance guide. .
Melville provides a critique on his Calvinist strict upbringing,
its decimation of the environment and warns of encroaching nihilism. He is
in search of values just as is Pirsig’s
intentions appear under the title - An inquiry into Values.
Similarly, the narrator is joined by Phaedrus and another
unnamed one with ideas punctuated by detail on motorcycle maintenance to
return to philosophical musings and social critiques.
The ghostly Socratic character of Phaedrus adds another degree
of complexity and interest. As an aside Pirsig suggests reading Lila for those
further interested in the character of Phaedrus (the author's alter ego) where he is jarred out of his
solitary routine by an encounter with Lila, a straightforward but troubled woman who is nearing a
mental breakdown.
Pirsig first encounters Phaedrus (pages 80/81) in the form of strange wisps of memory
morphed into an individual who was subject to shock treatment that destroys his
personality - he is now dead. Thereafter he surmises in his ‘Chautauqua’ (in effect philosophy concerned
with values and enrichment) how acutely aware that ideas are now only possible
for him after restoration of his mental state from the prior burden of schizophrenia.
What emerges along the arduous journey of competing ideas is a
long list of western philosophy (a great refresher for any serious
student and I don’t mean to be condescending) to encompass shades of
Nietzsche Heidegger, Derrida and postmodernism.
Where I have questions
But as a traveller down the road to pioneer new thinking
it becomes rather difficult, I think, to make definite conclusions or
fresh claims when so much seems to be already detailed by Heidegger and those
that followed.
The effective merger of east versus west thinking at first blush
doesn’t seem to add much more to what’s already known in the post
Newtonian world of today. One is aware of the dualistic limitations of the
Greek thinkers just as Darwin’s theory of evolution has had to be twigged
– it’s no longer just the survival of the fittest
But, of course, one needs to explore further those
thoughtful ideas that nevertheless require one to undertake a leap of
faith. You can't really mix up what in effect is mysticism
with rationality can you? Or otherwise you must accept that as
if it's a new religious way of thinking?
Pirsig accepts this difficulty but finally concludes there is a
seemingly simple intuitive solution - to separate the dynamic
patterns from the basic static ones. What is in effect in his mind an
amalgam of past and present tenses.
This then becomes the final conclusion of his ‘Chautauqua’ which takes shape in his mind as
an interesting read even if one doesn’t agree with his final outcome. After
all, the journey is more important than arriving at the destination- well,
mostly I guess? But I like the conclusion from
the Philosophy Now article which illustrates ultimately Pirsig’s brilliant
thinking.
Dynamic Quality’ is the term he gives to the
continually changing flux of immediately-experienced reality, while ‘static
quality’ refers to any concept abstracted from this flux. The term ‘Dynamic’
indicates something not fixed or determinate, which means that Dynamic Quality
cannot be defined, and therefore a true understanding of it can only be given
directly in experience.” (Andrew McWatt)
Analysis
One can get an initial impression he’s embarking on a ripping
good yarn on his motorcycle journey with a few philosophical musings
just as Hollywood adapted Moby Dick to the big screen.
For Persig eschews the joys of motorcycling
superiority to travelling otherwise by road cocooned away from any direct
engagement with the roads surface, to experience the wind in your face and the
environmental changes first hand so to speak compared to other read travel
modes.
He travels only the back roads where everyone and everything
moves at a refreshingly slower pace as he pauses refreshed in the evening to
read Emerson’s narrative on nature.
Seated at the wheel of his exceedingly powerful Honda breathing
in those life giving smells and fresh air he muses the problem then, and now
accelerating, is humanity’s disinterest in the details of technological
development as to how we can stay in tune with what’s happening. Such musings
became the catalyst to write his book sparked by the same malaise demonstrated
by his fellow companions.
His ‘Chautauqua’
takes shape in his mind now as he is reminded these ideas are only possible having cast off his prior
burden of schizophrenia. Ultimately to crystallise in his metaphysical concept of ‘quality’ manifests
as he sees it in the static and dynamic patterns we experience as ‘being in the
world’.
Persig’s philosophical
Persig’s fascinating narrative continues on ably accompanied by
his ghostly narrator Phaedrus who weaves his way in and out of
the philosophical musings. Despite the reference to ghosts the
authors note what follows is based on actual occurrences. He goes on to
say that much has been changed for rhetorical reasons.
Phaedrus first entry into the Odyssey is after discussions ensue
over his accompanying troubled son Chris who asks Pitsig- Do you
believe in Ghosts?
Phaedrus has become Pirsig’s character as an individual
discovered from health records who loses his personality after shock treatment
for his mental condition. But from prior records one is able to piece together
his past life which echoes Pirsig’s youthful life and his mental
problems.
Pirsig explains in graphic detail how Phaedrus lost his memory
from shock treatment to treat his mental illness. So it is the ghostly Phaedrus
who echoes Pirsig’s previous life. But subsequently
Pirsig posits that Phaedrus fails in his PHD thesis in comparison to his
version. But the question remains:
does that version also
fail? Academia mostly thinks so if the paucity of any real research other than
the Philosophy Now article is any guide?
But that can be true for many great thinkers and writers whose
brilliance is only discerned by a future generation. I suspect that may be true
for Pirsig.
But I guess for the millions of readers of that era living
during a time of turmoil in America didn’t care much about the finer
detail as its enjoyment resonates each step of the way to add clarity, even if
it’s only seen as challenging the status quo.
But in the context of the post mental illness freedom Pirsig now feels, Brian, an occasional morning café tea companion
and whose life is now dedicated to helping troubled youth informs me – I
couldn’t be sitting here now and have this conversation without input of the
chemicals that calmed and eliminated those voices and bipolar mood swings
that gave rise to prior bizarre behaviours. Mental illness comes
before ideas he surmises just as does Pirsig.
Unlike Brian, the shock treatment received by Pirsig means he is
more acutely aware that those affected can’t always recall all the earlier
memories as the treatment changes the brain structure to the extent some feel
they aren’t the same person as before. That sort of treatment was largely given
then in ignorance as today it is rarely justified unless considered absolutely
necessary because of the known risks of memory loss.
The ghostly Phaedrus in parallel with Pirsig provides further perspectives
in the form of a Buddhist koan
What is good and not good? Noting Koans are not necessarily
meant to be solved.
What emerges subsequently to justify his conclusion are shades
of post modernism to deconstruct the philosophical idea of subjects
and objects with his perception that all we see are patterns of quality. He
views this outcome as an effective merger of east versus west thinking.
The three narrators all aim at substantiating the view - in
reality ‘being in the world’ is synonymous with
“Quality.”
Phaedrus’s embolden approach is from one who is considered a
genius ( IQ 180) but in his attempt justify this view rationality he suffers a
mental breakdown and is admitted to an institution which liquidates his
personality. See page 80.
That was known technologically as ‘Annihilation ECS.’ A whole
personality had been liquidated without a trace in a technologically faultless
act that has defined our relationship ever since. I have never met him.
But fortunately Phaedrus has left behind a legacy—trunks of
notes, recollections of him by family and friends, even fleeting memories that,
like flashes of lightning, illuminate the narrator’s quest for him- language
and the reality he calls “Quality.”
Quality then he concludes is analogous to the Chinese “Tao” of
Zen thought. He feels the Church of Reason was wedded to logic
as philosophical mysticism is ineffable and can only be understood by
non-rational means- by experience. .
Here I sense shades of Kierkegaard and likewise the basis of Zen
practice.
Phaedrus then tries to imagine the debates in ancient Greece
between the rhetoricians and dialecticians - a debate as to whether or not
reality could be captured in words. But the consensus is that it is not
possible as good is ever changing.
The narrator’s focus turns to discern that the ‘Buddha ‘exists
independently even within analytic thought to provide analytic direction.
An attempt is made to combine rational analysis with an expanded rhetoric to
experience Quality by an alternation between past and present tense. That is
being in the world represents a combination of static and dynamic patterns
of quality.
Therein it is acknowledged you can’t combine something that is
ineffable with rationality in his brilliant conclusion taken
from Philosophy Now.
The answer according to Pirsig is quality – an amalgam of static
pattern with the dynamic. The static can be defined whilst the dynamic can only
be experienced even though we can discern what we believe are personal degrees
of that dynamic quality. From an article in Philosophy Now.
Dynamic Quality’ is the term he gives to the continually
changing flux of immediately-experienced reality, while ‘static quality’ refers
to any concept abstracted from this flux. The term ‘Dynamic’ indicates
something not fixed or determinate, which means that Dynamic Quality cannot be
defined, and therefore a true understanding of it can only be given directly in
experience.” (Andrew McWatt).
