Comment on Jose's Post

I agree with the entirety of Jose's post and can even point out that I believe we had the same thoughts and examples as we read this week's readings. To start off, I can completely comprehend how Jose sees the Doral High School cafeteria as a regular eating establishment during school days turn into a church service on Sundays. It does not matter that the service is being held in  cafeteria, what matters is how the people attending the service see it as. The minds are what make an entity true to itself, as long as everyone perceives the church service as a church service, it will be a church service, no matter if they are in a cafeteria, a public park, or a junkyard.
In addition to this aspect of the reading, Phaedrus' quote on dedication and confidence is also an idea that I believe all the group members agreed on. No one will be dedicated to something they have complete confidence on. Like the narrator explained, we all know and are confident that the sun will rise tomorrow. If so, why would be dedicated to finding out and wasting time on proving that the sun will rise tomorrow? It would just be inefficient. jose and I both had examples of taking a test on our original comments and I believe they are appropriate explanations and example to

Comment

Blog Post

Determination through lack of faith

This weeks' reading came with abundant information on the way people think and act. In my opinion, Pirsig did an excellent job in making the narrator describe Phaedrus' experience at the university and how his lack of faith in reason gave him the determination to keep teaching the class and giving his famous church speech at the end. I completely agree with what Pirsig is trying to get across. What brings one determination to complete a task? It is definitely not the thought that completing the task is easy and nothing has to be prepared or studied to do it. For example, when I know i have a test the next day but I have been paying attention in class, know the subject material and am pretty sure I am going to be fine, I do not have determination to study any more because I have convinced myself that I am set.  On the other hand, however, if I know I am not in a safe standing to do well on the test, I will definitely be determined to study more. This is exactly what happened to Phaedrus' life as a professor at the university, due to his lack of understanding on the subject, his determination in succeeding allowed him to deliver  phenomenal speech to his class.
In addition to this touch, another aspect that Pirsig speaks about is the idea of location. I agree with him in that a certain establishment does not have a "right location". A church service could be located in a church in the middle of the city as it could be located under a tiki hut in Tahiti, as long as the minds of the people attending it are unified and determined to make their presence at a religious service. In the same manner, a school or university can be located anywhere as the long the students and professors within consider it a school.
As the narrator approaches Phaedrus' old school, I wonder what effect it will have on his journey. He seems nervous about it, and seems like he is curious, but at the same time does not want to uncover any hidden tombs...

Comment on Talia's Post

I agree with Talia when she says that all the labels we put on things are make believe. However, Talia does not see any purpose for them and I think I do. I think humans created labels in order to maintain security, in order to be sure of something. It is true that going to two different medical schools give the same sort of education, but it is not the same education; you cannot compare Keiser University to John Hopkins. Even though accreditation is a little piece of flimsy paper, in a way, it is the only reassurance you can get to make sure something was done as you expected it to be done. It does seem that we value titles more than education, and I think that should be changed, but how do you go from there?

Going back to make believe labels, blue ribbon schools and college degrees are both excellent examples, but if you think about it more, our entire lives and our way of living is make believe as well. Humans are animals, and although we are more intellectual and capable of great things, why don’t we live off instinct? Why is it that we care about makeup and clothes and not food and water? I mean, it is obvious that we have to give our lives a purpose and a meaning, but it is just a thought that I have always had. Why all this, why do we go through all the trouble of living if eventually we are all going to die anyways?

Comment on Jose's Post

I don’t think that Pirsig meant to comment on the materialism of things when he made that comment. Nonetheless, I do not disagree with the statement Jose is making. Although I myself find it slightly strange to be worshipping God in a cafeteria versus the typical Church setting, there really is not anything wrong with it. There should be no reason why we are bound to the four walls of a Church building to pray. If we want to worship God in our own home we can, so why would it be wrong to worship him in a cafeteria setting?

As well as Jose I strongly agree with the statement that Pirsig had made about how “we are never dedicated to something that we have complete confidence in”.  I did feel kind of strange about the statement though. While I recognized it as true I could not find any examples of the validity of the statement within my own life. I like the point Jose made about religion, but I do not agree with it wholeheartedly. People are not dedicated to their religion because they are trying to make it sound believable to outsiders. People are typically devoted to their religion because it gives them a sense of security and a faith to get through things that they feel they would not be able to manage “alone”.

- Talia Akerman  

Accreditation and Reason

I really like the comment that was made about the accreditation of the college.  Although I was a bit skeptical of Phaedrus’ teaching I thought the comment he made to be extremely insightful. Essentially, all the labels we put on things are make believe. Being a blue ribbon school, having a college degree, having an MD at the end of your name does not really mean anything. If two people go to two different medical schools and one is accredited while the other is not, the person who went to the accredited school will be more highly regarded. For what though? Even if they both received the same exact education the person who had accreditation will be known as the better one. It really does not make any sense seeing as that accreditation is only a flimsy piece of paper. An education is an education and a little piece of paper should not change that for anything. It seems that we value the title in our society way more than we value the education itself.

            The quote that Phaedrus had said about having to “serve through reason… the goal of truth” seemed interesting to me as well. Reason is something so subjective that almost no two people will agree upon it. However, what was more interesting about the quote was the fact that reason was helping serve the goal of truth. Reason is already difficult enough to find, but truth is even more rare. The truth is so rare because so many are so afraid of what it can do and end up not telling the truth at all. How then are you supposed to reason through something that can pretty much be said to be non existent? 

- Talia Akerman 

Church of Reason

The first thing that actually caught my attention during this week’s reading was when Pirsig began to talk about the differences in “universities”. If I understood what he was trying to get across correctly, then I can relate to some of the things he was saying. For example, when he states that a real University has no specific location and that it is a state of mind, I thought about the church in Doral. Most of the Catholics around where I live attend usual Sunday mass at the Doral Academy High School cafeteria. Some would say that this is in no way shape or form a church; it’s a place of eating. However, if I understand Prisig properly, then the materialistic objects do not matter, the four walls that enclose the building do not matter; it’s the mind inside the building that controls what it is. Students who attend the school see the cafeteria during the week as a commonplace for eating, but on Sundays, they see it as a holy place. 

I was confused when Pirsig spoke about what was meant by the Church Of Reason, “their primary goal is to serve, through reason, the goal of truth”. I still do not really understand what he meant by that. At first I thought he was saying that everything done should be focused in order to achieve the truth. But, then I realized that their aiming for the goal of truth and not truth itself. Does that mean that truth does not really exist?

I strongly agree with Pirsig when he says, “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in”. In my opinion, that is a fact. You can apply that statement to many things; a test for instance. You are not going to study for an exam that you know you will ace, but you will drive yourself insane studying for a test which you doubt, which you think you will fail. I think you can apply this statement to religion as well if you base it off the Pirsig’s statement that people are dedicated because they have doubt. Many, if not all extremely religious people get defensive almost immediately if you question any of their beliefs. I was raised Catholic and I believe in God, in a higher power, but I think that religion itself is a big question. I think that people become so fanatical about their religion because they have to find a way to make it seem real, to make it tangible. 

Comment

I am happy Dany and I have the same question on the relationship between the narrator and Phaedrus. I agree with him that Phaedrus is an actual person. Given all the evidence from the war's he participated in and his travels and life in other countries, in addition to being a philosophy student, it will be hard to prove that he is something other than a human being.  The way the narrator discloses a vast amount of information about Phaedrus also surprised me. Throughout the beginning of the novel i always thought that Phaedrus took on a role of a ghost, a mysterious being in the life of the narrator that he seemed to be petrified of, yet wanting to discover more about him. Now however, it seems like the narrator wrote his biography, he knows everything about Phaedrus! He does not seem afraid of the "ghost" and keep retracing his steps through the Midwest in pursuit of additional information I suppose. Even to the point of staying at Mr. Deweese's house, as Phaedrus stayed. Does the narrator even know Mr. Deewese? This was something Sylvia and John were questioning him about but I did not find a believable answer from the narrator explaining  their relationship. I am eager to discover more about the narrator's relationship to Phaedrus as that, I believe, will bring about a turning point in the novel.

Philosophy Class

            As I read through chapter 11, I constantly felt like I was listening to a professor ramble on and on about philosophy and the theories of famous philosophers. Unfortunately for me, this type of talk does not interest me and I realized I constantly drifted away from the reading.

            The way the narrator transitions from what is literally happening to a philosophy lecture annoys me. Especially when the group was on their way up to the high country. The narrator connects his travel to the high country with the high country of the mind, and he keeps explaining how thoughts and ideas are organized within the brain and how each person thinks differently. How objects in life are perceived, and how the senses see them, if they see them at all, and how a person would see life if he had no senses, and how a motorcycle displays different views for different people by the way they perceive it and so on, these thoughts just didn’t get to me.

            One aspect that I thought moved me forward with the novel was how the narrator provided much more background information on Phaedrus. Before I was not quite sure what he did in life, now I know, (and should have guessed) that he was a philosophy student that traveled around the world and had much diversity. He then settled in the Midwest and kind of gave up all of his previous effort in philosophy. Bu I feel there is still an aspect missing about his life that the narrator has yet to reveal.

            The narrator’s action of retracing Phaedrus’ steps throughout the Midwest brings questions to my mind. I still do not know what is the relationship between Phaedrus and the narrator. How does the narrator know so much about Phaedrus? About what Phaedrus said to different people, being in Philosophy class or to Mr. Deewee? We keep getting numerous accounts of Phaedrus actions and his philosophical life but are left without the connection back to the narrator. I am eager to discover the relationship between these two complicated and mysterious characters.

            Meanwhile, I will keep reading to find out more about the group’s travels through the Midwest, the narrators constant urge to retrace Phaedrus’ steps, and have to withstand the countless more philosophy lectures I am sure on their way.

Comment On Talia's Post

I think it is interesting how Talia and I have the same type of feeling toward Pirsig and his writing. The more i read, the more i also become uncomfortable. We have been taught to think that we are learning each and every day, but as Talia mentioned, are we really learning anything? She is right when she says that anything can be disproved by another scientific theory. It is very hard to get that thought through my head. For example, we have grown up to believe that life and society is a certain way. However, the more you think about it, at least in my eyes, the more you tend to realize that it is all made up and b.s. I think Talia would agree with me when i say that everything is made up, that nothing is real or concrete. Everything around us, whether it is an object, a subject or a mere thought, it is all a figment of our imagination. We react to certain things because of beliefs or views we have been "taught" before.  Talia is right again when she states that institutions are holding us back. During class, i understood everything we discussed, but i could not really see how going away from the institutions would bring true success. I still think that people can be happy while living under the institutions, but after reading Pirsig, i think that success itself is also a creation of our mind, an imagination. You can not really measure success, like you cannot measure knowledge.

Comment

I want to comment on Talia's post because I am not sure that she explained herself correctly when she says that she is scared of the ideas presented in this novel. Though I agree that some of Pirsig's ideas are a bit unsettling, I do not find them applicable to real life. I find that the more people dawn on the unknown, the less they focus on real life and the world around them. I feel that reading this book is like watching a scary movie, its shocking as you're in the middle of it, but once you're done you can't think about it too much because it will not bring you any good. I think that Philosophy is not for everyone and it is definitely not for me. I am too pragmatic and square minded for the abstract ideas that philosophy encompasses. I appreciate what Pirsig tries to explain to the readers but I do not feel that it is necessary to think that way. In fact, I think that it is harmful to many people because it distracts them from the real world and their mundane goals. This novel, is not for me as it creates a lot of confusion and it clearly is not for Talia either because it causes anxiety. 

Chapters 11 and 12 reaction.

The narrator seems to know much more about Phaedrus than I had expected him to. I am not so sure anymore that the narrator and Phaedrus are the same person. Phaedrus seems to be a generation older than the narrator, possibly his father’s age. This has become evident to me as the narrator states that Phaedrus took part in the Korean War which ended in 1952 and this story, from what I can tell takes place in the late sixties or early seventies. I have noted that as the characters get closer and closer to the mountains, the images and stories of Phaedrus get clearer and clearer. For example, the narrator shares that Phaedrus used the Red Lodge route to access backpacking areas in the mountains. We also get information about Phaedrus’ army career, we get information about some kind of turning loin he had while in Korea and a confusion between Phaedrus and the Koreans which he described in his letters. These pieces of the puzzle have completely ruled out the possibility that Phaedrus is an idea or an actual ghost, we are now certain that Phaedrus is an actual person. What is still unclear is his relationship to the narrator and his actual name. 

Apart from the information about Phaedrus, the mountains seem to bring about a sense of calm and happiness to all of the characters. This relates closely to the lecture we recently had on Kafka. In this lecture we talked about the importance of escaping the structure and rigid nature of society and going off to the mountains to be free and happy. It seems that the characters in this novel truly needed a break because all four of their moods became much better once they arrived in the mountains. Now in chapter 12, we get information about the type of relationship the narrator had with Phaedrus, the narrator seems to think that Phaedrus and DeWeese are superior to him and he becomes somewhat anxious in their presence. The last impression I got of Phaedrus after the first twelve chapters is that he is an enlightened hippie. 

Comment to Jose's Post

     I really understand what Jose is saying in his post. I felt the same way- my thoughts were changing drastically with each turn of a page. I really did not know what to think at some times because much of what was being said felt so radical to me. This is one of the reasons why I am not the biggest fan of philosophical readings. I know that they are enlightening in that they cause you to think of new things and change your ideas- it that makes me feel uneasy. I do not like the feeling of thinking that everything I have learned for so long is just wrong. I like that it gives me a new way of thinking but I really hate that it can completely disprove everything of that I have learned, if learning exists that is. 
    Like Jose I believe that the more we learn the less we known. I found it interesting that he connected it to the lecture just as I did. It is nice to know that someone thinks in the same manner as you sometimes. I found the comment that he made about the three institutions being made up to be interesting as well. The institutions are made up in that without civilization these things do not exist. Looked at simply, these things do not even exist in animal's lives. They are simply methods of control that people have created in order to instill " calm and order" amongst people. They are only methods of control. At the same time, I get that the Church is a form of manipulation but I cannot help but get my faith from the Church. I cannot completely degrade it knowing that the faith the Church has given me has gotten me through so many things I do not think I could have gotten through alone. I understand that the Church manipulates you to think exactly that- that you cannot do it alone- but I am still thankful for the faith the Church brings me. 
- Talia Akerman

The Idea of Knowledge

      It can be said for certain that we have gotten to the philosophical component of the novel. In all honesty, it is almost too philosophical for me. It is forcing me to doubt a lot of what I thought I knew which makes me really uncomfortable. I am not saying that Pirsig's words are making me think that my entire life has been a lie, but it is forcing me to be in a position where I am reconsidering much of what I have "learned". I put learned in quotation marks because one of the things this novel has forced me to think about is whether or not there is any actual learning in life.
     At one point in the chapter the narrator comments that "there is no real progress". I connect this quote to the idea that the more you learn the less you know. It seems that every time some one proves something or "learn" something new a bit of what was thought to be true before is disproved. It seems that scientific findings only pushes us further back while simultaneously pushing us forward. None of what we believe to be true is actually concrete because it has the ability to be disproved with the next scientific experiment. Even the theories that are so commonly taught in science classes fail to be concrete. I do not think that many people realize that even evolution is not something that is known for certain. It is called the THEORY of evolution and I think many forget that. Though it is intriguing that none of our knowledge is certain, it is quite unsettling at the same time. Actually, it is past unsettling, it is almost kind of scary to think that we actually know close to nothing. It is scary to think that we believe we know so much when we actually do not know anything.
     I am kind of conflicted in my views though. While I believe that science only disproves our knowledge I think that to be successful you do need to push boundaries. Here, I am measuring success in the things you know and how much "knowledge" you have. Obviously knowledge is not a quantifiable measurement, but for the sake of the argument it will be. Pirsig says through the narrator that "the harder you think... the slower you go." I found this to be highly connected to the class lecture we had this week. I think that the faster you go in knowledge the slower you really go is because the institutions do not want you to go that fast. The institutions are holding us back because their restraint makes us much easier to control. The only people to have really progressed in life are those that have gone past the restrictions of society. They go slower within the confines of society but as soon as they break through the barriers that society puts up as a control, they are able to progress at an alarming rate.

- Talia Akerman

Contradictions

During this week’s reading, I found that my thoughts were drastically changing and contradicting each other from page to page.  For starters, when Pirsig first asks whether or not we really know anything, my answer was that we do not. The more we know, the more we know that we do not know. This opinion was further supported by this week’s lecture. The three structures, church, family and state as well as any other invention is made up, it is created. The method in which society works is just a interpretation of how we, as humans see it and decide to act on it. Knowledge is based of something else, but that something else, but that something else was created by humans, so are we really gaining any knowledge?

Then, I had no idea what to think when Hume asks if a person without any senses has a thought. At first, my response was no. There is nothing to create a thought, nothing has been learned. However, after I thought that a thought could be possible. Hunger is not a sense, it is a feeling. You do not hear, taste, or touch sense, you feel it and that feeling then causes the thought that you are hungry. Although you have not learned to speak or formulate those thoughts into words, a thought still exists. 

My first thought when Hume said that nature and nature’s laws are our imagination was that he was wrong. For example, gravity is not made up. It is something that just happens on earth, how else does an apple fall to the ground? If gravity was made up, then physics would be made up as well. But then I realized that I was going against my very first opinion that everything is made up and the more I thought about it, I decided that nature could in actuality be our own imagination. Physics is made up; humans created it, it’s an invention. In all honesty, I have no idea what the real answer is, but then again, neither does anyone else.

I think I agree with Kant when he states that all components of knowledge come from the sense at the moment the sense data are received. I thought is based off something else, then something has to exist in order to think about it. Although, I think he is wrong because Pirsig states that he and his followers have a sort of understanding of how we know things. I do not think that we truly know anything, nevertheless how we know it. 

Comment on Talia's Post

I agree with Talia and feel that I am in the same place as she is in the novel. Whenever the narrator begins to talk about his philosophical components and ideas I drift away and lose interest. The same happens when he starts talking about how he conducts his mainteenace on his bike and gets specific on all the details. I do not have the minimal knowledge on motors or automobile maintenance, therefore, the only aspect i get out of it is that he is an expert in what he does and has passion for it.
This brings me to what Talia pointed out, how the narrator is ahead of John, not only in maintenance but in rational thinking. In the extreme heat, John gets frustrated and seems to be having an awful time during the rides, and keeps going faster and faster to try to get it over with, however, the narrator, knowing the dangers of such action, stays behind going slower. The narrator demonstrates his rational thinking when he explains how he divides his life and everything he does, especially his motorcycle maintenance, into categories. I do it as well, and having the same experience, can say that the categories  never end. One classification lead to another and another. The same way as one problem leads to the next and the next and one hypotheses leads to the next and the next, it is an infinite sequence that one needs to earn how to deal with since life is full of it.

Comment on Talia's Response to My Post

Now, after reading Talia’s comment on my post and thinking about it a little more, I agree with Talia. I think that due to the fact that I, myself cannot answer these questions, I become frustrated in a way.  Talia is right in saying that a question is usually meant to be answered because it is supposed to have answer. Even rhetorical questions have answers, just that the responses are not required. A question left unanswered does feel incomplete, as if something was missing.  Like Talia mentioned in class on Friday, after numerous unsuccessful attempts, I was frustrated. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that I could figure it out, when there was a way to solve it. However, even though I feel like every question is supposed to and should have an answer, it does not mean that they do. For example, the answer to why the Earth is round or why humans came to be is not one hundred percent accurate, they are all theories. Who is John Galt? I still do not know how to answer that question. No matter how much knowledge and insight we have, I do not think we would be able to answer the questions or ideas Pirsig leaves his readers. I mean, how are we going to do it, if Pirsig does not have a response to them himself?

Still, the questions that keep bothering me and ticking away at me the most is: Why Pirsig describes these ideas and has this sort of mindset? Who is Phaedrus actually and why is was he even created? And where in the world is this book headed?

Scientific Method Class

As I read through the next reading section of the book, I felt more and more isolated from it. As Pirsig talked about science and the scientific method, I felt like I was sitting in an 8^th grade science class all over again. I understand the steps, and understand how to attempt to solve a problem and make logical and plausible hypotheses, but was puzzled by the reason behind his need to explain all of that. In my opinion, the narrator was explaining to the reader the obvious. He told us how we should make the correct hypotheses and only state the problem that we know is occurring… Isn’t that obvious? Why would you make assumptions of the problem when you haven’t even tested for that assumption?

Moving away from the whole scientific class, I am now lingering on the thought of what or who Phaedrus is. At first I though he was a ghost, then I though he was a person in the narrator’s past, but now, leaning the Phaedrus was pursuing a ghost in his lifetime, and the narrator is following his steps, what is he? When the narrator said he was seeing through Phaedrus’ eyes and could see his hands as he was looking down to the motorcycle handles, I wasn’t sure of the exact connection Phaedrus and the narrator have. The narrator goes on to tell how it is dangerous to confront Phaedrus head on, and by doing it, one is inviting disaster, but he goes on t follow his path and finish what Phaedrus started. However, that is the problem. I am not quite sure what Phaedrus was after in his lifetime. He was a smart kid and learned molecular science well up to the point that he got expelled from college, and I wonder what occurred to make him earn the bad grades.

The one part of this reading segment I understand and agree on is the power of rational thinking. How the mind and knowledge has the power to rebuild anything that was ever created, and it is the mind that dictates the problems and solutions to aspects in life and not life itself. By understanding a subject material, one has its blueprints imbedded within his mind and can call upon it whenever he wants. That is why the mind is the most important aspect of a person; it guards and protects everything that one has ever attempted in life. 

Comment to Jose's Post

 I really agree with the point Jose is making about the way Pirsig manipulates his readers through the narrator. I do not know if I would consider them “tangents” but I do believe that a lot of what Pirsig says leaves me questioning many things, one of those things being what I just read.

            Not to psychoanalyze Jose, but I think the reason he continues to think about these questions he cannot answer is that he is bothered by the mere fact that he cannot answer it. I say this because I know that the same is the case with myself. A question seems like it should be answered, a question left unanswered feels incomplete to me. Any lack of answering things because to really bother me because I feel slightly incompetent, something I am sure no one likes to feel. I am not sure if I agree with the statement Jose made about the questions being “unanswerable”. I feel like sometimes when we cannot answer something we would rather think it unanswerable so that we feel better about being at a fault to answer. I think all of these questions that come to mind during Pirsig’s work are answerable, just not with the current knowledge and insight that we have.  I am unsure of what kind of knowledge it would take to answer said questions but I do not think them unanswerable. This point brings me to the activity we did in class on Friday. Many of us asked if it was possible to even connect three houses to three utilities without an intersection. It is possible we just did not see how. Our constant failure to answer the puzzle if you shall made us question its possibility in an attempt to cope with out failure.

-Talia Akerman

We'll Catch Up

For a great amount of time while I was doing this reading, I felt slightly incompetent. I could not seem to grasp the philosophical component of the novel. I knew for a fact that it was going to be insightful with regard to values since the cover says exactly that. While I was reading the beginning all I could get out of it was the narrator’s slightly egocentric tone and self-praising attitude.

Aside form failing to see any philosophical component I was starting to really hate the narrator. I could not find anything that he said agreeable. However, when he mentioned the knife that cuts the world into pieces I began to like him a little bit. I agree with the belief that any division (obviously not a literal one) only leads to more divisions. There is not a set way to define and categorize the world. Any cut will only lead to more cuts- not more, but rather an infinite amount of cuts. The world is so conditional and so greatly about perspective that it cannot be divided fairly.

I know it could be a stretch, but the philosophical part of the novel that I think I have begun to see comes out when the narrator tells John that he will go slowly so that John and Sylvia can catch up. I know that he literally meant he would not drive too quickly on the road but I think that John is behind him literally and figuratively. John is not only behind him on the road but also in thought. John seems to have a mentality and a set of ideals that are much more behind than those of the narrator. When I say this, I am not referring to the narrator’s views on maintaining motorcycles; I am referring to the narrator’s thoughts on what rationale is.

Regardless of the fact that the narrator gets many, if not all, of his thoughts from Phaedrus he has come to recognize that rationale is actually what drives people to irrationality. He speculates that Phaedrus became so irrational because of his pursuit for rationality. I myself do not know if I believe that something like rationality exists, at least not a common rationality. Each person has their own set of morals, who’s to say one set of morals is more rational than any other? Again, when the narrator said he was waiting for John to catch up he meant it literally but, I think that unknowingly he was waiting for John to catch up on a mental level. I think he awaited John’s recognition of his stunted mental growth.

-Talia Akerman

The truth about Phaedrus

In the seventh chapter, Pirsig reveals the much debated truth about Phaedrus, who he is and where he comes from. As it turns out, Phaedrus and the main character are the same physical person but different spirits. My assumption is that Phaedrus who is the first spirit to occupy the body was a regular person who developed some sort of psychological disorder that escalated until he became a whole other personality. Another possibility, is that Phaedrus suffered some type of trauma that caused him to take protective measures to psychologically protect himself from whatever event that caused was caused by the trauma. I do not think that Phaedrus is the original personality’s real name, I think that the narrator knows some of what is happening or has happened with his past and that is why he names his alternate personality. The nnarator is slowly finding things out about himself and his past. He gets random images of Phaedrus these to me represent a symptom of the physiological disorder that he experiences. Phaedrus is what is left of his old personality after the switch. 

I am convinced that many of the narrator’s inquiries into Phaedrus and who he is/was are his way of finding himself and coming to terms with his disorder. I do not agree with the narrator that Chris has a mental disorder, I think he is simply an immature boy who does not yet know how to overcome hardships without complaining. I see the narrator’s prediction of Chris’ mental illness as a projection of his own problems onto his son. The narrator’s disorder has not affected his passions, or other human carachteristics, for example, in the novel it is evident that he is genuinely passionate about motorcycles. I predict that Pirsig will in some way tie together the concept of Phaedrus and Motorcycle maintenance but I cannot yet see how this will be done. 

The mind

I found it ironic how when the narrator is trying to fix the jets in his motorcycle, he says you can never fix them all; that there's no immediate answer so he just leaves it as a hanging question. Not only does Pirsig do that to himself, but he does it to his readers. The entire reading so far has had many parts to it which are honestly dumbfounding and confusing. Many of the tangents Pirsig goes on leave me, and probably other readers as well asking themselves questions, wondering what and why something is going on. It’s interesting though, how even if I, as a reader cannot come up with an answer to what he is saying, I continue to think about it. In other words, I become captivated by what I cannot figure out and therefore try to answer such a question even though it is not possible.

I think it is fascinating how Pirsig makes one wonder about what's around him and how it was created. For example, how did books come to be? How were words created? Every invention, started off inside someone's head. Nothing was produced out of thin air; there is always a person behind every development. The motorcycle itself and all its parts were once just a dedicated person's idea that was put on paper, worked on, developed, and perfected. As Phaedrus said, it's all in the mind. 

However, I believe Pirsig contradicts himself two chapters ahead when he speaks of Einstein and hypotheses'. A couple pages before he is stating how everything comes and is run from the mind, but now he says that the formation of hypotheses is mysterious and unknown. It does not make sense to say that everything comes from somewhere, but a particular thing has no particular origin. I personally believe that the hypotheses also come from the curious mind of men. The flash he spoke about that suddenly triggers the beginning of a development of a hypothesis is uncertain, but the hypotheses itself is created in the mind. 

            I also really liked the line, "the more you look, the more you see" because it's completely true. If you glance at something at quickly or look at it without interest, you will retain a general picture, but when you pay attention to the details, you will observe things you weren't looking for and never expected.

Reaction to Dany's Post

As i read Dany's post on the different approaches John and the narrator have on fixing the motorcycle , i first agreed 100% with what he mentioned, and second, had a thought about how their personalities apply to classical and romantic themes. The narrator is concerned with what works and will do everything in his power to solve a problem, no matter how he does it. John, on the other hand, is the opposite, its not always about the solution to the problem, but how the end product will look. As i read Dany's descriptions on their attitudes i realized that John's personality follows that o romantic analysis while the narrator's personality follows that of classical analysis. The way John could never think that a beer can can solve the problem of his handlebars has to do with the fact that a beer can fixing his precious luxurious motorcycle seems humiliating ad wrong, no matter if it actually fixes the problem. I thought that his attitude resembled that of romantic analysis, how it is only concerned with the appearance of things. In contradiction to John, the narrator resembles classical analysis as he is concerned in solving a problem oriented towards logic and law.

Comment On Talia's Post

I also, like Danny disagree with Talia. Although Pirsig is a bit judgmental and he can get annoying at times, you can't really blame him for it. As Danny said, the book is narrated in his point of view. If it were narrated by John, he would be judgmental as well and we would read about how muchh Pirsig was slowing them down. We would read John's complaints when he spoke to Sylvia about how annoying and ridiculous Pirsig was being for riding his motorcycle so slow. It's all based on perspective. Whether we like it or not, we are all judgmental and we can't avoid it. As I said on the video discussion, being judgmental is a unlike quality that all humans are unable to control.

However, I agree with the Talia on the fact that I'm not entirely certain of whether Phaedrus is a ghost or not. Although in my blog this week I state that Phaedrus is his second personality, I'm not one hundred percent convinced. If you think about it, how does he know so much about this "thing" if he has never met him. As of now, like Talia, i have no idea where this book is going and what it's overall meaning or point is. Nevertheless, I want to find out. I like the fact that Pirsig keeps this mystery alive because it makes me want to keep reading.

Phaedrus' Identity and Discussion of Understandings

In the beginning of chapter 6, the narrator keeps making it seem as if Phaedrus was a ghost. By stating that Phaedrus was not buried correctly, it makes one think that his soul or something possessed the ability to come back to life as a ghost. However, later on, it's almost inferred that Phaedrus is actually part of the narrator. When he says that he is in a hospital and feels like he woke up from a dream instead of having a hangover, you can tell that something out of the ordinary was taking place. Then, when the doctors exclaim that he has a new personality, it was almost obvious. Although the narrator doesn't state it directly, you can tell or at least assume that the narrator has multiple personality disorder and that Phaedrus is his other personality, his other half. He says that knows who Phaedrus is, but has never met him, which makes sense if he does have this disorder. So far, this weeks reading was very interesting and I really want to see where it's going to end up. 

Another interesting aspect was the discussion of romantic unrstanding and classical understanding. Although the narrator says that these two forms are completely different and seperate from one another, I believe that they Caen be interrelated in one way or another. For example, you might think a certain subject is dull, like the narrator exclaims,and therefore be considered a romantic. However, another subject in which you need to understand the underlying form interests you, and you can be considered classic.  I thought the description of the motorcycle parts was boring and not intriguing, but I'm not sure if that would classify me as a romantic. 

Comment on Talia's post

I find myself in complete disagreement with Talia when it comes to the narrator's "annoying judgemental attitude". I do see why she may think that the narrator is judgemental but I do not see it as a problem. I agree with his philosophy that everyone who rides a motorcylce consistently should know at least the basics of motorcycle maintenance. As for his judegements on John and Sylvia, I see them as natural. Every person aside from Mersault has judgements and the only reason why his are expressed so prevalently in the novel is because the story is told a in the first person and thus he expresses his judgements to himself like Talia expresses her judgements about him to herself. He does not express these judgements to other people nor does he talk badly about John so I do not see why these Judgements are a problem.

I do share Talia's confusion about the ghost and who or what he represents. Similarly I agree with her when she talks about the ghost's role in the story and why he is no longer portrayed as something to be feared. 

Comment on Rodrigo's post

     Though Rodrigo seems to be a lot more certain of the fact that Phaedrus is indeed a person, I do agree with a lot of what he says. Unlike Rodrigo I am not 100% sure that Phaedrus is a person but I am becoming increasingly believing of the fact. I found it humorous that Rodrigo commented on the rambling of the narrator being similar to that of a professor. Though I had not thought of it at first, I find it to be insanely accurate. Though I am sure there is some kind of philosophical component to the words of the narrator or Phaedrus, I found it to just go on and on without any point to it. It seemed exactly lie one of those teachers that goes off on a tangent and you are left with no clue of what is occurring. I too, was unable to understand the purpose of the differentiation between romantic and classical perspectives on things. It seemed to be very besides the point of the story. But, then again, I am not Pirsig and I do not really know what "the point of the story" is yet. I hope that the latter chapters do prove that this rambling had some sort of meaning or connection to the rest of the novel.
- Talia Akerman

"No value judgments"

        I find the main character to be more than frustrating. In all honesty, he has been frustrating me since the beginning of the novel. What bothers me the most about the main character is the fact that he seems to be so judgmental. Despite the video discussion I had with the other people in my group, i fail to see his comments as anything other than judgmental.
        When the narrator begins to really speak on the subject of motorcycle maintenance and the terms romantic and classical he mentions that in motorcycle maintenance "the words good and bad and all their synonyms are completely absent. No value judgments have been expressed..." I found this to be insanely ironic because of all the judgment he has passed on John and Maria, more specifically John for not maintaing his own motorcycle. He makes the "art" of motorcycle maintenance seem a lot more objective that the way he actually carries it out.
        While I found the majority of his talk on the difference between romantic and classical to be engaging, I am still thrown off by Phaedrus. The ideas are still very much credited to Phaedrus, but I still fail to figure out if Phaedrus is a person or a ghost. While in the seventh chapter he seems to take on a much more humanitic form, there is still a significant amount of doubt in my mind as to what he is.  I also found it rather odd how the narrator began to speak of Phaedrus in a more positive manner now where as before he seemed to be utterly terrified of Phaedrus. How is he able to now speak fondly of someone or something that he feared would hurt his son just a chapter before?
-Talia Akerman

The Shim is the Difference

The discussion about the shim that the narrator proposed to use to fix Johns handlebars in chapter five is a perfect example to describe the inherent difference between John and the narrator. The narrator is a practical man who looks at the world and thinks how he can maximize  the use and value of the materials and situations given to him. He sees a problem and finds a solution not thinking about how the solution will look but rather how it will work. When he saw that the handlebars were loose, he immediately thought that a piece of a beer can in the socket would tighten the grip and stop the handlebars from wobbling around. 

John saw this a different way, John sees things as an artist would. He likes to imagine how the solution will affect the image of the final product. In Johns mind, a cheap beer can cannot possibly be the solution to a problem with an expensive machine. This is not a viable solution in Johns mind because it doesn't look right. John sees the idea of using a piece of a beer can on a fine machine as a desecration of the machine. John is the type of person who needs to buy the piece that was intended to solve the problem in order to actually role the problem. He is the type of person that publicity agents dream of because he will fall for every marketing scam that involves the image of the product. While the narrator is resourceful and solves the problem, John make the solution look good.

Phaedrus was a Real Person

From the knowledge i was able to obtain from the previous chapters i was constantly left with the same question of whether Phaedrus was a real ghost and whether he was present in the narrators life as a real person in the past. Chapter 6 not only answers my question, but also provides crucial information on some of the actions Phaedrus takes and what actions he excelled in.
So, i learned that Phaedrus was actually real person that the narrator respects for his ability to separate classical analysis from romantic analysis, but that is all that i was able to grasp form this complicated chapter. The narrator goes on and on as if he was a professor rambling about his ideas on analysis and analysis of the analysis and so on. For most of his teachings, he lost me and i was not able to understand why he was saying all of of this and for what purpose. I understood that romantic analysis deals with what is perceived on the outside and classical analysis deals with more reasoning and law... Ok, now what? Where is the nameless narrator taking us with all of this intellectual teachings relating back to Phaedrus? He then mentions something about a knife, that is able to cut and divide aspects of analyses, and how Phaedrus had great knifemanship and was able to separate classical and romantic analysis. I still could not connect with the reading and was left in a state of confusion. What has gone through the narrator's mind in this chapter?
I am eager to find out how the next few chapters of the book unveil about all this information provided by the narrator, and hope that they all do serve a purpose for the book, other than provide a boring reading segment.

Video Discussion 1

Click on the links below to watch the videos:

• Part 1
• Part 2

"Rejected by a Record-breaking 120 Publishers"

Influx Daily Article on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Difference in personality, Chris, and Phaedrus

                I like how Pirsig never stated one personality as better than the other. He says the narrator focuses on scientific meaning, while John has an artistic mentality. Although the narrator didn’t understand at first why John thought this way, he never said it was wrong. He usually thinks that his methods are better, but this time, he said they were both right. One personality is practical and the other is intuitive. However, I disagree with the narrator when he says that John’s reason of anger toward his engine was based on his personality. It could be possible that he was mad, just because it wouldn’t start and he was annoyed by it. The narrator always tries to relate his thoughts to real life experiences and tries to validate his theories through these memories.

                Also, I could tell from the beginning that something was wrong with Chris. He was acting different, rude, and spoiled. At first, I thought the narrator was being too lenient and not giving his son enough character. As a parent, I think would have been livid if my son completely ignored me and did the opposite of what I said. Yet, when the narrator revealed he had a mental illness, it’s obvious that the narrator is trying to find the best method of raising his son. He continuously doubts his actions and is just trying to do what is best for Chris. I am curious at why the narrator never told his close friends, John and Sylvia about his son’s illness.

                The narrator describing Phaedrus as an evil spirit does make me think that he is an actual ghost. Nevertheless, I don’t quite understand his role in the book.  It doesn’t make sense why Phaedrus would be calling Chris at the end of the chapter. The narrator, at least how I see it, made it seem as if Phaedrus was responsible for his sons mental illness and that might be the reason why he the narrator is scared of him.

Reaction to Talia's Post

Like Talia, I also think that the narrator is terrified of Phaedrus, and that that is the reason why he does not tell Chris that ghosts actually exist. However, I also believe that due to the fact that Phaedrus seems to be calling Chris at the end of Chapter 5, the connection between Chris and the ghost makes the narrator even more terrified of Phaedrus and more determined to keep Chris from knowing that ghosts exist, if he does not know it already.  Apart from this possibility, I am left in the same position as Talia is, not knowing what other purpose Phaedrus serves in the story. I do believe, however, that Phaedrus will become a constant and increasingly occurring conflict for the narrator, and that it will ultimately drive the novel towards its climax.
I am eager to see what connection Phaedrus has with Chris. The old poem by Goethe is highly similar to the circumstance the narrator is going through right now. It will be tragic to learn that the narrator's story ends in the same way as the poem ends, in "failure... Death of the child. The ghost wins", unfortunately however, I do think there is a strong level of similarity between the two stories.

The "3 Days in" Crisis

The method Pirsig chose to display further characteristics of the individuals intrigued me. Instead of just mentioning what one’s characteristics are, he demonstrates them through actions that occurred on the hard, tough, and long third day of travel.

            From the beginning, I could tell that Chris was going to be a pain in the ass this day. By complaining over and over again about every little detail he got me irritated about reading his multiple complaints to his dad. Before his mental illness was revealed that is. As I learned about his mental illness I could understand why he was making so many complaints. His stomach pains and his states of mind all come into play as he endures the third day of camping, given that it was one of the hardest days to endure so far.

            In addition to Chris’s character development, I also saw development within the narrator’s and John’s character. I agree with the narrator’s belief that there are different dimensions of thinking that are unique to every individual. In my opinion, the different ways everybody thinks is what shapes every individual to be unique and different form one another. In the narrator’s mind, it was the perfect solution to use the beer can as the shim, but for John, that just didn’t seem right, and that is completely ok. People think differently and therefore act differently in life.

            Also, I was glad to read that Phaedrus came back to the plot of the story. I am interested in how he will affect the narrator’s actions for the future of the trip. The way the narrator saw him during his semi-awake/ semi-sleep state through the corner of his eyes in the fog made Phaedrus look even more like a ghost, confirming my belief from the previous chapters that he has a good possibility of being a ghost.  

The Character of Phaedrus and Chris' Mental State

     After Phaedrus' quick mention, he was not brought up again until now. His "return" has answered questions about him. The main character says that he sees Phaedrus out of the corner of his eyes and he describes him as an evil spirit. This proved my initial belief that Phaedrus was not actually a ghost wrong. Despite thinking that I would be upset if Phaedrus was a ghost, I am intrigued by it. 

     The way that the main character describes Phaedrus makes me wonder if he told Chris that ghosts were not real because he was so haunted by his own ghost. I think that he is so terrified by Phaedrus that he does not want to admit to Chris that they are real. He fabricated this lie in order to protect his son from the fear that he has to live in. Despite having an almost complete confirmation that Phaedrus is a ghost, I am sill slightly unsure of what his role in the story is. I do not know if Phaedrus is the one that has been feeding the main character these "new ideas" that he has, or if Phaedrus is a figment of his imagination caused by some troubled past. 

     This chapter also brings the revelation of Chris' mental state. I liked how Pirsig chose to reveal Chris' ill mental state so discretely. Instead of having him behave as a stereotypical loon, he did it so slightly that I did not even realize. The revelation of Chris having a mental illness intrigues me because I want to know what caused it, if he was born with it, how he lives everyday with it, etc. I enjoy the fact that the author chose to reveal so little about it because it makes me want to read more.
- Talia Akerman

Comment of Talia's Post

I would like to add to Talia’s comment on the reasons why Prisig decided to keep the main character nameless. I have several ideas which may help clarify this. I think that the idea behind having the main character so abstract is so that he applies to anyone. Leaving this vacancy in his person allows any reader to place him/herself in his shoes. In relation to her comment about the ghost I think that it has an element of foreshadowing, perhaps the narrator and the ghost really are the same person and thus have the same name. 

I don't really agree with her that keeping him nameless detaches him from what is going on around him because a name doesn't necessarily attach you to anything. I think the Pirsig uses the narrator’s ideas and thoughts to detach him from the rest of the characters and their ideas. Lastly, envisioning a character is not a matter of name, it is a matter of personality. Therefore, to me the lack of a name does not pose any problems in envisioning the character. On the contrary it allows me to create a more unique vision of the character and what he is like because I can give him any name I want to. 

Reaction to Jose's Post

I agree with Jose in that the reader can relate to the situation between the narrator and John and Sylvia in chapter 4. The examples Jose gives have happened to me as well so I was able to relate perfectly with the actions occurring in the book. Even best friends can get annoyed at each other for little things sometimes, but at the end they notice its not worth being frustrated or annoyed about it. It is much more enjoying to be in good terms with them, especially if you are traveling together, to make the most out of the trip. 

The example of waking up early in the morning when none of your friends are awake brought me back memories. I am usually the first to wake up so that instance has happened to me many times. I am in total agreement with Jose. We always wake up and think for a while about random thoughts that come up in your head. Remember what you did yesterday, wonder what you are going to eat for breakfast, and ask yourself what are you going to do today? Then these thoughts get boring and you are left with nothing to do, except waking up your friends. 

I though the way the author chose to list out the items carried by the narrator was interesting. It mad me notice how much stuff a motorcycle rider needs with him at all times during a long trip, and it relates back to the title, focusing on motorcycles and the tools required for their maintenance.

Further Development of Main Characters

As I continued reading I was surprised the topic of ghosts was not touched upon straight away. Instead I witnessed further character development by the author and an example of how long group trips take intensive organization, patience and cooperation.

As the group leaves the motel in the cold early morning towards Ellendale, everybody seems quiet, a relatively normal circumstance of cold mornings. However, as they arrive at Ellendale, I could tell that John and Sylvia were rather unhappy with the nameless narrator for taking the road so early in the morning, given the current situation. The way John and Sylvia didn’t talk to him upon arrival and remained inside the hotel until it warmed up while the narrator went out for a walk gave it away. This circumstance is one that is definitely present in almost all group trips. Everybody has different opinions and tastes; the compromise in decisions is essential for a successful trip.

The narrator’s character is further developed by the walk he has through town in the morning. He shows how he is observant and a thinker. Questioning cause and effect situations such as “no technology”. John’s character surprised me the most. At first I thought he was serious man, slightly clumsy by the way he deals with his bike and equipment. However, when he decides to play the role of “Chickenman” through the restaurant wearing just long blue underwear I changed my opinion. He is a funny guy, and likes to have fun, just don’t make him ride when it’s cold.  Sylvia’s character is shown when she talks about prairie’s nature. How what they see cannot be captured in a photo and is only worth watching with raw eyes. I completely agree.

Relatable To The Reader and its Title

                In chapter 4, I think the author does a really good job in making the book relatable to the readers. For example, we can all say that we’ve been involved in an instance where your best friend annoys you and you give them the silent treatment for a couple of minutes and then forget all about it, or vice versa. When John and Sylvia are angry at the narrator for waking them up and forcing them to drive in the cold, it’s a feeling that any reader can relate to because they’ve been in a similar predicament. Even when the narrator tries to get Sylvia to speak to him, he feels slightly guilty, but he’s doing it for his own amusement because he knows that Sylvia isn’t actually mad at him. The same happens when you sleep over a friend’s house you’re the first one to wake up. You sit there and let your mind wonder, waiting for everyone to get up until. This goes on for a while until you can no longer take the boredom and decide to wake everyone up yourself. I can see where the narrator is coming from and completely agree with him when he says that on a vacation time is not to be wasted on sleeping. The point of a vacation is to go out, and actually enjoy your surroundings, not stay in bed all day. It is details like these that make the book more enjoyable because you can understand what’s happening; you can picture yourself in a situation.

                Not to mention, this chapter seemed somewhat instructive. Most of us in the group, based on previous comments and blogs have decided that the book has nothing to do with its title. However, when the narrator is thinking about his lists, and giving the reader small tips, it seems as if he’s trying to teach us something, educating readers on motorcycle maintenance. I believe Pirsig does this on purpose in order to show the readers that even though the narrator can get lost in his thoughts, as he did in this chapter as well, the book isn’t based on philosophical subjects if you will. The faint instructions that relate the title with what’s actually going on in the story give it some sort of grounding reality; which is sort of contradicting what he said in the previous chapter that everything is in our heads. 

Personality Discrepancy Between The Narrator and Supporting Characters

In the fourth chapter of the novel, the main focus is the main character and how he differs from the three others on this motorcycle trip. It seems as if Pirsig tries to exaggerate the difference in ideals about technology and, more specifically motorcycle maintenance by making the narrator different from John and Sylvia in every possible aspect. The author draws his first distinction early in the morning as the narrator lists the items he usually brings with him on these bike trips so that he will not forget next time. Meanwhile, John, Sylvia, and Chris are sound asleep. This seemingly insignificant action tells a lot about the difference between the narrator who wakes up early in order to appreciate the time he has on vacation; and the supporting characters who want to get as much sleep as possible regardless of the fact that they are wasting time. 

The next major distinction is drawn after their freezing morning ride. As the narrator is happy that they are out early, making good use of their time, John and Sylvia are in a bad mood because of the cold weather. The narrator does not mind a minor cold front, he just wants to ride. John and Sylvia however, don’t want to be uncomfortable and they refuse to leave until the temperature rises. At this point the narrator makes a valuable observation, John and Sylvia do not like to be uncomfortable, yet they refuse to deal with technology. It is easy to see his confusion and, as he puts it, their confusion as well. So far I tend to identify myself more with the narrator but I do enjoy the huge distinction that Pirsig makes between the two personalities. 

Purpose of a Nameless Main Character

   In most of the novels that I have read, the author reveals the main character's or narrator's name with in the first few pages. However, such is not the case in  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Despite already having read a significant portion of the novel I have not even the slightest clue of what the narrator's name is. At first I thought this was part of my mistake but when I looked back to check I found that his name had, just as I thought, not been revealed. 

   Concealing the narrator's name, in my opinion, allows him to remain detached from what is going on around him. I think that this permits the character to seem like an observer in situations that he is actually partaking in. I am not entirely sure of why the author would want to allow him to remain detached from the situations that he is very much a part of though. I think that the act of having a nameless main character may have something to do with the fact the he says he is "not alone" in the ending of the previous chapter. In other words, Pirsig doesn't give him a name because he is not really his "own" person. Since the thoughts he speaks are not his he is not actually his own person; he is merely a body speaking the thoughts of another.  

   Its harder to envision the character in my mind since he does not have a name. A name is something so personal that it allows people to associate you with you. Without a name you are just this being who merely exists, but with a name you become someone. You go from being this collection of atoms to being an actual person.
- Talia Akerman

Reaction to Jose Novas' comment

For the most part I believe we all agree that the third chapter of the novel is significantly better or, at least easier to read that the previous two. However, I do disagree with Jose on the Narrators view of ghosts and his belief that everything in science is a ghost. Let me put it this way, a ghost in my eyes is something that cannot be detected by the normal human senses: it cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Therefore it is something that cannot be proven to exist. Science on the other hand, can be seen. You can see how a pendulum swings and creates energy, you can smell two chemicals reacting, etc. This leads me to conclude that science unlike ghosts, can be proven to exist and therefore does not have to be taken on faith. 

I do agree with Jose that the narrators view on the law of gravity is flawed. I agree with Jose that everything exists, and whether or not its has been discovered is a different question. I found it amusing when I read Jose’s comment that as I was reading the novel I was thinking of the same example about the animals/plants that have not been discovered.

Reaction to Chapter 3

As far as I am concerned the first two chapters of the book would have discouraged any reader from continuing to read. Honestly, had it not been required of me to read this book, I would not have done so pas the first two chapters. Once I reached the third chapter however, i have become more interested. I have found many similarities between the narrator and I myself, besides the obvious fact that we both like motorcycles. Much like the narrator I like to do things myself and solve problems on my own. 

Regarding the storyline, I am a little disappointed in the inclusion of a ghost simply because I have never been one to believe in the supernatural and thus the addition of this element into the storyline has taken away some of the realism in the story and has detracted from the pleasure of reading this novel. 

The idea of the unknown and how reality may not actually be how we perceive it does bring some of that pleasure back because that is a very interesting perspective of the world that I have never really contemplated. I really enjoy reading Pirsig's perspective on this because it gives me insight on a different view of the world around us. Overall I did enjoy the reading of chapter three much more than that of the previous two chapters. 

Father and Son Relationshi[ and Ideas About Ghosts

                Chapter 3 was easier to read than the previous ones. One of the things I enjoyed about this chapter was how realistic the father and son relationship was portrayed. By trying to be a good father, he indulges himself in the conversation of ghosts, trying to interest his son and give him what he wants. I can relate to when Chris has no idea what his father is talking about. I’ve been involved in similar instances where my father and I are speaking and my younger brother can’t grasp anything. When he asks a question, my father sighs and prepares for a long explanation just the narrator. Not to mention, the mood the narrator is in when he is kept from sleeping is one I am very familiar with. My father, as well as the narrator becomes grumpy and angry when someone is stopping him from getting his sleep.  These types of instances make the reader understand the narrator’s feelings.

                Not to mention, I found his monologue on what a ghost is or isn’t to be very interesting. His way of thinking was different from any I had heard before. His ideas made me think in a completely different way because they were new to me and the captured my attention. For the most part, I think he is right; everything is a ghost, everything is in your mind. You can’t really see science, “it has no matter or energy”, but it’s still there.  Every idea is in our heads, in our imaginations, but it exists. However, I disagree with the narrator on one thing: that the law of gravity did not exist before Isaac Newton. In my opinion, the law did exist, like everything else exists, except it hadn’t been discovered yet. For example, when new animal or plant species are found, they are new to us, because we had never seen them before, but that does not mean they didn’t exist, we just didn’t know about them.

Jose Novas 

Response to Peer Post

I agree completely with Talia's post. I believe that there is always a reason for one's actions. Talia's attitude toward the narrator at the beginning of the novel was the same attitude I felt toward him. I though he would not consider other people's reasons for doing what they do and just regarded his ways as the best ways of life. This attitude is wrong, however, as the novel progressed we soon understand why he takes such actions toward his motorcycle. The unfortunate event with the mechanic and his motorcycle explains why he refuses to let anyone fix his bike other than himself now, and that is completely understandable. There is. A logical reason behind his actions.

I found interesting Talia's comment on people's assurance. I completely agree. Yes, people's suggestions and reviews may help tremendously when considering different options in life, such as a doctor (like Talia's example), however everybody's experience and situation is different, and therefore, that leads to different outcomes which may or may not be similar to the reviews and suggestions.

I had the same overall reaction as Talia toward the narrators explanation on ghosts and the role of the mind with existent and nonexistent aspects.

A Change in Perspective

Throughout the first two chapters of the novel, I felt that the author focused on revealing information about the characters that related to their “motorcycle” way of life. However, as I reached chapter three, I was shocked to find out that this is a ghost story.

I would have never imagined that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance would be about ghosts. I was wondering what made the narrator slow down suddenly on the highway as John continued to speed up to run a way from the rain. The way Sylvia noticed his hand shacking at the motel sign in sheet gave it away. He wasn’t afraid of the lightning, as it seemed, but of Phaedrus, the ghost that has been following them. I thought this was an interesting fact about the narrator. Even though he seemed to be a tough and stubborn man, he has a unique relationship with a ghost, and he keeps this relationship a secret form the others. I wonder where this relationship will take him throughout the novel and how long he will be able to hide it from the others, especially his son who asks him about ghost stories, which unintentionally reminds him of his feared friend.

Another aspect I found interesting about chapter three was the perspective of the narrator on ghosts and the mind. How everything we learn and do may be a ghost of our imagination. Did they always exist in the past? How can we tell if something we understand and live with in the present is existent or nonexistent? These were some of the questions I had in mind when reading the narrator’s explanation. It was puzzling, but at the same time interesting, it made me think about it deeply.

Our "Ghosts"

            At the start of the novel I came close to hating the narrator. My biggest problem with him was the way he viewed others. It seemed as if he elevated himself simply because he took matters into his own hands as opposed to letting other people do his work. Nevertheless, I have come to change my opinion on the narrator as the novel has progressed.

            Through further description and insight into the lives of the characters I was able to see why the narrator believes so highly in self-sufficiency. His bad experience with the motorcycle mechanics triggered him to want to do things on his own. I thought this proved the saying of “if you want something done right do it yourself” well.  The insight into this experience he had also led me to wonder if we ever have any assurance that someone is good at his or her job. We do not ever really know that someone is competent enough to do what he/she is doing. By the time we figure it out it is too late. In other words, what I am saying is that despite hearing by word of mouth that a doctor performs surgery well, we do not truly know for ourselves until the surgery is over. By then, it could be too late if the doctor was not in fact good at his job. Obviously, this example extends past doctors and onto other professions. 

              Another point in the novel that I really enjoyed was the narrator’s explanation of the “ghosts” that surround us. Despite liking the idea that nothing we "know" is absolute, it did unsettle me a bit. It is unsettling to think that everything we know is not actually truth. The idea that they are just labels on non-existant things is bothersome for it takes out the certainty we have in life.
- Talia Akerman

Response to Peer Comment

I agree with Juan’s comment in the sense that I was excited to read about motorcycles, not about some man’s experiences in long, dull, motorcycle trips with his friends. I would also agree that I find it hard to believe that one can find peace and meditation while riding a two wheeled animal that at any moment can end your life. To add to his comment on how ridiculous this is, I would like to say that my experiences on motorcycles have all been fast paced, adrenaline pumping and the furthest from relaxing possible. I do believe however, that Juan has been too quick to judge the novel because we have not experienced the narrator enough to be certain that his ideas are ridiculous or that his thoughts are shallow and meaningless as Juan implies. Like Talia, I disagree with Juan that the novel has not taught us anything. It has opened up the narrators mind on what life is really about. Additionally it has demonstrated a controversy that I was unaware of on how to cope with technology. I can honestly say that I did not know there where people who attempted to run away from technology as the novel states. 

The Narrator and His View of Technology

In the first chapters of this novel, I have discovered that the main character I the type of person who enjoys the simple things in life. It is obvious that he does not care about living an extravagant lifestyle because he realizes that with more money comes more problems. He is joined by a group of friends who share this type of lifestyle however they believe that all technology is harmful and they try as hard as they can to escape it. The narrator, on the other hand takes a different approach to this. He believes that the best way to handle technology is not to escape from it, but to learn to control it. This is clear in his desire to maintain his motorcycle himself rather than letting others do it for him. His companions however try to use the motorcycle to escape from technology. This of course creates considerable irony to the situation because they are now using technology to escape from technology. The narrator supports his belief by recounting a story from a previous trip where he was forced to end the excursion because of his lack of skills in motorcycle maintenance, and in a more general sense, his lack of preparation in dealing with technology. In addition, the narrator has provided several examples, using John, as to why it is important to take control of technology and not let it stop you and/or slow you down. Slowly, we can see the narrator trying to convince John of his belief and I think that through examples he will be able to change John’s mind. 

Response to Peer Post

I agree with Talia's blog post and how she noticed that the story shifts from nature appreciation to criticisms of other people by the narrator. I realized the same things after the first few pages. The narrator of the story is portrayed at the beginning as a man who appreciates nature and wants his son to see the wonders that the world presents them with. He continuously points at the red colored blackbirds to show his son how amazing and beautiful they are. In addition he mentions how the local roads and less populated highways are the best routes to take as they provide the bikers with the most incredible scenery, with birds, marshes etc.
At a certain point though, the narrator shifts his focus from nature to criticisms of others. In conjunction with Talia, I also noticed how he mentioned that the cars "slip by" the scenery, and the people inside them are enclosed in a compartment that prevent them from enjoying the road. The narrator's comparison between him and John on taking care of their motorcycles to Catholics and Protestants on birth control caught me by surprise. I agree with Talia that the comparison is "extremely out of proportion". The narrator does seem to think that he does everything better than others and is stubborn with his remarks. I am eager to see the narrator's attitude throughout the rest of the story.