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