The Machine and the Mind

            As the narrator arrives at the DeWeese house, I found myself intrigued by all the wonderful and detailed scenarios and scenery Pirsig provides. There was no doubt in y mind that the house was beautiful and the nature surrounding it was outstanding. It is at time like these where the imagery of the story is excellent that I can best picture the scene in my mind and want to be part of it to see it in real life. The way he described the exuberant dirt roads with alfalfa fields on the side, and the V shaped canyon with horses grazing under the trees seemed like paradise.

            It is fairly clear that when the narrator arrives and talks to DeWeese that their connection isn’t as strong as it was described when the narrator was there before. I knew explanations would come with it, and was extremely excited when it seemed that the narrator was finally going to reveal the real purpose for his travels, but unfortunately the conversation go interrupted. I am eager to discover it.

            The main point of the reading section was the narrators explanation of the machine and the mind, and that the machine is used to test the mind. I agree with him that the machine is not right or wrong; it is how the mind works with the machine that may be right or wrong. The machine is a test for the mind.  How one constructs one, or sues one relates perfectly with how one’s mind expects from the machine. When constructing one, or taking part in any action requiring constant input from the mind either solutions or conflicts can arise depending on how the interaction between machine and mind develops. One must began any input of effort with a clear and relaxed mind, determined to accomplish a goal and to accept mistakes to learn from them.  By doing so, the machine will work as intended, the right way for ONE individual mind. On the other hand, when one engages in effort with an agitated mind, he cannot expect the machine to help him, but the contrary it will create more problems and leave him with an even more agitated mind and with no machine suitable to help his needs.

            A machine should work in par with the necessities and adaptations for one’s mind in order to be successful for each individual and unique person.

Quality and the School System

                As Talia said, it has become more evident that Phaedrus is not a ghost, but a character from Plato’s work. However, my theory that Phaedrus is the narrator himself does not seem to leave my mind. For some reason, when Pirsig speaks of and about Phaedrus, it seems as if he is talking about himself. This is probably of the obsession he has with Phaedrus, also as Talia mentioned, but it is just a feeling I have.

                Nevertheless, my mind was pretty much blown when Pirsig began to discuss what quality was. At first I did not understand the question that was being asked or why, I mean it seemed simple enough. Yet, when he pointed out that the term quality, in itself is contradictory, I was amazed. Materialistic things are in fact some better than others, and sometimes you can say what it is that makes them better, but where the actual quality comes from is unexplainable. You cannot discuss the quality of an object if you have no idea what it is. The question that bothered me the most though, was does quality exist. If you cannot determine what it is or completely define it, then what is it? For me, this question is parallel to “of a tree falls when no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”. There is an answer, but what is it?

                When Pirsig began to speak about school and how Phaedrus looked at the grading system, I found it weird. Most of the things that he spoke about, came to my mind right before I read them. For example, all the consequences that would come from eliminating grades and how students would react were ideas in my head before I even read. After I read, the ideas or thoughts just became larger and more vivid. I have agreed that students nowadays are more focused on the grade they receive in their report card, rather than what they actually learn and that is what Phaedrus was trying to change. Chase the knowledge behind the grade instead of the grade itself. Even though I acknowledge this truth and admit that the best type of motivation is one that comes from within, as an effort to really learn, and no matter how much I want to have this sort of motivation, I do not. Most of the work I do for school, I do not mind doing because it is interesting, although I probably would not do it if I did not have to. I guarantee you that most students think this, and would change their ways if they could, it just seems very difficult to do so. 

How we View the Past

I am starting to like this book a lot now since much of what seemed to be unexplained in the beginning is being explained now. There is finally concrete information letting us know that Phaedrus is not a ghost, and as I had thought, Phaedrus is a character out of Plato's works. While at first I had found it extremely creepy that the main character was so obsessed with Phaedrus and spoke of Phaedrus as this thing that possessed him, I now find it interesting since Phaedrus, as the main character explains hi, is one of the inventors of reason.
I really like the point the main character had about the way we view the past, present, and future. He said that "you look at where you're going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back where you've been and a pattern starts to emerge." I found this to be so compelling because of how relevant and accurate it was with everyday life. I think I speak for most people when I say that the past always seems like a better, more exciting and peaceful time (not during all experiences though). In the moment, most things or situations hardly ever make sense to us. They frustrate us so much that we even begin to hate the present. Then, as we look back retrospectively into the past we see something that makes sense when the present and the future is so foggy. I think this clarity that we can see in what we have already experienced is what makes people long for the past so deeply.
The main character finally explains what his problem with technology is and this explanation made me have a much deeper appreciation, better said an appreciation since I hated him before this, for his way of thinking. I know understand why he judges John and Sylvia so much because he has explained his dislike of technology. Though many do not think about it, technology is, as the main character states, disconnected from matters of the spirit and the heart. Technology is just this thing we use to facilitate our lives and no one thinks about how plain it is because of what it gives us. If it weren't as useful as it is, people would probably criticize technology's disconnected ways constantly. I like that the main character has such a deep appreciation for the arts and for things that really awaken and connect us to our souls (and I say this without trying to sound really mystical and cheesy).

-Talia Akerman