Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

[Pictured: Hyalite Peaks, south of Bozeman, Montana]

This is a discussion thread to post quotes and feelings and thoughts on the third part of Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

This portion of the book is the longest of the four. If you haven't finished it, no worries! Come here when you're done to participate. I'll still be reading and responding. 

What's more, these threads will be open in perpetuity! They can function as a checkmarks in a pilgrimage for any Patrons to embark on at any time. If you're starting late, or a slow reader, or don't have the time to keep up with this pace, just tune into the thread when you get to that part. It's ok, we will still be here! 

Now, for quotations and quandaries and quarrels and Quality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined... But even though Quality cannot be defined, you know what Quality is!"  (p. 209)

"Squareness may be succinctly and yet thoroughly defined as an inability to see quality before it's been intellectually defined" (p. 222)

Why should Quality be just what you like? Why should "what you like'' be "just"? What did  "just'' MEAN in this case? When separated out like this for independent examination it became apparent that "just" in this case really didn't mean a damn thing. It was a purely pejorative term, whose logical contribution to the sentence was nil. Now, with that word removed, the sentence became "Quality is what you like," and its meaning was entirely changed. It had become an innocuous truism. (p. 237)

Romantic Quality was the present, the here and now of things. Classic Quality was always concerned with more than just the present. The relation of the present to the past and future was always considered. (p. 254)

"What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct." (p. 256)

When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind that thinks and talks as yours does is something close to a blessed event. (p. 267)

The preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious "whatever you like" but on Quality, which is reality itself... It is NOT capricious, it is the force that opposes capriciousness" (p. 275)

"...care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same thing. A person who sees Quality and feels it as he work sis a person who cares. A person who cares about what he sees and does is a person who's bound to have some characteristics of Quality." (p. 283)

Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. (p. 284)

"That's what caring really is, a feeling of identification with what one's doing. When one has this feeling then he also sees the inverse side of caring, Quality itself." (p. 305)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I keep pulling thesis quotes for clarity and posterity but I also very much enjoy the character development through this portion, as well as the critiques of Phaedrus's galaxy braining by the narrator.

First of all I should say that I don't know whether Phædrus' claim that Quality is the Tao is true... he may not have completely understood what Quality was. Or, more likely, he may not have understood the Tao. He certainly was no sage. And there's plenty of advice for sages in that book he would have done well to heed. (p. 263)

Now, whenever you're at this checkpoint, whoever you are:

Express your Objective Thoughts and Subjective Feelings down below, both essential components of reality!

Files

Comments

Chandler Sterling

Oh shit. Quality is God. Can't unthink that now. It's almost funny to me how the simpler the revelation sounds, the less it feels like anything in the world has changed and the more it feels like I have on a fundamental level. Everything is definitely different now, but I know for a fact it always looked that way, I'm just seeing it for the first time. I was living in a Euclidean world, and now I've been given the tools to see a non-Euclidean option. It's a refreshing feeling to see EVERYTHING like it's the first time. Quality did not come from this thing, it came from Quality. How neat. I guess if Quality is God then, "...it's just a fact that if Jesus or Moses were to appear today, unidentified, with the same message he spoke many years ago, his mental stability would be challenged." (pg. 188) is probably not a good sign for the state of Quality in our current lives. "Grades really cover up failure to teach... if the grades were removed the class is forced to wonder each day what it's really learning." (pg. 200) This and the whole bit about trying to turn his class into knowledge-based learning makes me understand now why that old student was so sad to hear he had stopped teaching altogether. It is rare to have a professor not indoctrinated into every little belief about how awesome college is because a lot of them never knew anything else, so to have a teacher who himself gave up on university for a while must've provided a perspective that is needed for growth. The narrator says it himself a few times, Phaedrus' big break was just that he stumbled into a break from the typical journey from everyman to "classical intellectual". It is hard to imagine he would have so happily bucked a system unless at some point in his life he felt like it had failed him. He had a vested interest in helping his classes skip the aimless wandering he had to go through and get straight to Quality instead. He also does an excellent job of establishing the importance of the present moment before smacking you over the head with the revelation that this IS Quality. "Then, when you're no longer thinking ahead, each footstep isn't just a means to an end but a unique event in itself." (pg. 205) This book really blows my mind at how often it is subtly guiding you towards exactly the headspace you need to be in for the philosophy during the more autobiographical bits. It carries a load that has normally been on the reader in philosophy. If you're not in the right mindset, it can take dozens of attempts to actually be on the author's level, and they rarely take the time to recognize and guide you through it in my experience. It's a level of care that, if the narrator is to be believed, is directly tied into the Quality of ZMM. The whole debate over the definition of Quality in chapter 18 with the 3 arguments for Quality's inability to be defined felt remarkably like Martin Luther hammering his 99 theses on the church door. I think considering he's within the Church of Reason, it's a somewhat intentional move. I am huge on linguistics and overthinking even the most basic assumptions behind the things we say, so when he painstakingly picks apart sentences like, "In fact it [life] wouldn't be worth living. The term worth is a Quality term. Life would just be living without any values or purpose at all." (pg. 218) my brain just explodes with good vibes and new neural pathways. The moment they give up on reading Thoreau is so amazing too. "He's talking to another situation, another time, just discovering the evils of technology rather than discovering the solution. He isn't talking to us." (pg. 227) It really is nice to see him kind of give up on a classic for being too much a product of its time. What it was famous for is no longer even relevant, or at the very least, so ubiquitous that we don't need this many pages to understand it. Should we reassess it's Quality? I'm unsure, but the narrator seems to believe so. The rephrasing of the way children are told to be responsible in terms of classical and romantic lenses finally helped the ideas click for me. "'Don't base you decisions on romantic surface appeal without considering classical underlying form.'" (pg. 238) The retreading of each topic feels so much more natural than I would've expected, it's truly a credit to Pirsig's writing that he can repeat an idea over and over in just a new enough way that I'm not tired of hearing it. And it does feel necessary. He's not just saying classical and romantic again to make sure you haven't forgotten, it's just that if the world is split into these two fields, then everything is going to end up displaying at least one or the other. Finally we get to the big part. The realization that Quality is above and beyond just mind or matter, that it never originated in either and in fact might've informed them both to begin with. The mix of academic logic and religious mysticism to jump between a metaphysical Trinity then a monism just bounced around my brain all night when I read it. Things just kept clicking into place in a way they couldn't have without his explanation that what makes Quality so hard to reach is because we've been searching for it within instead of all around. Quality is God. Perhaps a bit of it resides in you, but that is no reason to think it came FROM you. You are just one of many vessels. I also think it's hugely important that the only way to arrive to this conclusion was to remove himself from the typical assumptions of cause and effect. It was a correlation the whole time, and now we can understand that Quality is not something that happens when you make something good, it's the good that you make things from. Quality is always around us, it is an event that we can attempt to invoke, not a thing we can make. And then we even reshape classical and romantic into long and short Quality respectively, and it makes even MORE sense. This whole section is just like a dam finally burst and all of the groundwork that has been carefully laid for us is finally taking its full shape. And now that these ideas are starting to cement, he is SPRINTING across them. The epiphanies are constant and each one hits harder than the last. The math was interesting, and I'm glad he stuck to the grander concepts instead of trying to get into the mud. Math is very easy to scare people with because it is rarely taught properly (but I don't have time to get into that rant), so it's good to see that Pirsig is smart enough to touch on the Greatest Hits and keep it moving. I liked the approach of using the ideas of Poincare to complete the arc of Phaedrus' thoughts from the other direction, making a sort of infinite loop of knowledge. To finish this one off, I've been seeing a lot of the same grumblings that I feel for the relationship between the narrator and Chris in every post, and I think while there's still a part to go, I'm confident that I understand what is rhetorically being attempted here. The knife splitting Phaedrus and the narrator is pretty clearly fear at this point, so if the narrator represents all of Pirsig's fears, then the reason for the distance from his son seems to be the fear that he'll become just like him. That's why his son seems to be the only person he doesn't view as a student; if he lets his son in on the same ideas that broke Phaedrus without fully conquering them, then there's a fear that they will have the same effect on Chris. Pretty much the only time the narrator thinks of Chris, it's to worry about how he is developing. Wringing his hands over the egotism (which he's 11, of course he's going to constantly seek validation) and worrying about the quiet while at the same time reinforcing it every time he shuts down Chris' questions. It feels like the product of too much fear which seems to be the source of all of the narrator's trouble honestly. Chris wants to climb mountains, and the narrator is scared of what they'll find if he does. It's sad, but with the progression of the dreams so far, I'm pretty sure that glass door can't stand between them much longer.

Just Connor

well fuck. i have been reading this as a patron pilgrimage to visit the many sites of kti before i joined. i didn’t say anything in the first two posts cause i felt i had nothing to really add, and while i still don’t really, i came to just say that this was the most life changing read ive had. this book really lives up to all the hype cj was saying, if you are a fellow person wandering these posts just read this book it’s so damn good.

Lucas Regis

I'm back!! My reading (and sadly also a bit of my understanding) of this part was delayed by falling into every single possible gumption trap this past month, right as the book entered its longest (and perhaps densest) part (setbacks including but not literally limited to having my phone stolen so I lost ALL of my notes of the first 2/3rds). I haven't been living with Quality lately (can you tell that last chapter slapped me in the face and rocked my whole world), and because of that a lot of the logic disentangling in this part left me in the dust. I definitely need a re-read of some sections, but there's still much I immediately loved here in this first read!! Before anything, I have to echo everyone's thoughts on the structure of the book. It really is unlike anything else. The straight split between theory and narrative is really refreshing, and the contrast between the two provides whole new meaning. This part feels special though. The first two parts established a very precise rhythm between the two sides of the book (both the inner and outer conflict given similar focus and being clearly differentiated by a paragraph break), which this part slowly starts to dissolve. Narrative sections seem to dissolve into Chautauquas as the narrator loses focus, and vice-versa. The last chapter is particularly guilty of this: Pirsig and Chris travel a massive distance but we're not privy to most of it. The few glimpses we get of the trip are extremely short compared to the massive gumption dissection. Finally (for what I think is the first time ever?), we get a paragraph break that doesn't lead to a switch in perspective at all, we continue in the Chautauqua. Maybe my new digital copy is just cooked though (lol), but it does feel intentional, as the lines between subjective/objective, classic/romantic, Pirsig/Phaedrus start to blur, so too does the structure of the story. It's exciting, but also off-putting. It also highlights how dysfunctional his relationship with Chris really is. One thing I noted early on (before my notes got ROBBED) is that he seems to read a lot of malicious intent from Chris's actions which I simply don't believe is there. "Oh, he WANTS a fight, he WANTS to be punished!" It's like he believes Chris is always 100% of the time behaving proactively towards the intended consequences of his actions, rather than the completely normal human behavior (especially for children) of Chris simply reacting to the shitty situation he's in without putting much thought into the consequences. As the part goes on, he seems to stop doing this, and instead becomes more self-aware of how distant he is from Chris's thought process, but this also coincides with him dissociating from the trip altogether. Climbing down the mountain was definitely a meaningful turning point. I'm just not entirely sure how yet (it definitely has to do with Phaedrus, but Phaedrus's relationship to Chris is equally mysterious). The biggest source of confusion for me this chapter was the entire classic/romantic Quality dialectic. I get the basic gist of it, but the specifics still feel a little vague, which is upsetting since the concept of capital Q Quality is extremely compelling to me. When we first start talking about Quality it seems as if the concepts of romantic/classic thought have been completely abandoned (or rather, simply aren't useful to the topic at hand), but then they circle back full force towards the end and it hasn't quite clicked with me yet. That being said...! "One's rational understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from minute to minute as one works on it and sees that a new and different rational understanding has more Quality. One doesn't cling to old sticky ideas because one has an immediate rational basis for rejecting them. Reality isn't static anymore. It's not a set of ideas you have to either fight or resign yourself to. It's made up, in part, of ideas that are expected to grow as you grow, and as we all grow, century after century." - Feeling super duper smart for sorta calling this all the way back in part 2, and also YES YES YES. so true king! But then, shortly after... "With more concentration you will begin to see the screw as not even an object at all but as a collection of functions. Your stuckness is gradually eliminating patterns of traditional reason." This one's a sticky quote for me, since I largely associate traditional reason with classic thinking, which Pirsig directly defines as seeing things for the functions they play as part of the whole (they're not the same thing and obviously the scientific method involves a lot of romantic thinking and Quality assessments Poincaré moment aaaaaaaa but yk yk yk). "The real ugliness lies in the relationship between the people who produce the technology and the things they produce, which results in a similar relationship between the people who use the technology and the things they use." "Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce right thoughts. Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all." Probably my favorite quote of this part. Feels like having someone spitting my own thoughts back at me. Tangent related to this quote: I was talking with my sister the other day about what else but capitalism, and we stumbled upon the point of how quality of work has plummeted at the same rate as class resentment has peaked. She had a very individualist outlook on it (conservative), but I held the point that you can't blame people for acting poorly when the system itself rewards acting poorly. Humans aren't all response-reward machines (I think this is beautifully exemplified in this book with the anecdote of two gas station owners who are technically competitors but end up helping each other instead, that sort of thing happens all the time and life would be unbearable if it didn't), but as economic conditions become more scarce and people's Quality of life is consistently reduced, it's only to be expected that you'll see less Quality in everything they do also. I think this is a more interesting line of argument than simply stating wage employment is bad because it is "exploitative". It is bad because it produces significantly less Quality in the relationships between employers and employees and the work they produce. "Programs of political nature are important end products of social quality that can be effective only if the underlying structure of social values is right. The social values are right only if the individual values are right. The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there." I'm not sure about this part. It feels very late-stage Petersonian "instead of changing the world how about you clean your room"-core. But at the same time it does fit neatly within the context of the entire book, and I think Pirsig is coming at it with significantly less disdain for social movements (lol). The reason why everyone bags on Peterson's "clean your room" shtick is that it's just so condescending and obviously attempting to ad hominem specific groups of activists, but there's still a core of truth to it: any therapist will tell you you're not gonna get any good work done until you get your home in order, and you're not gonna be able to do that until you get your own mind in order. The inner and outer worlds are connected. From a leftist PoV, no socialist movement will ever truly reach its lofty goals if at its core it's still working from a capitalist lens. That's a lot of work though, particularly if we're talking at social scale. Pirsig makes the switch from "individual values" to "social values" seem somewhat simple and quick, when in reality it is anything but. Getting an entire society to change its mind on anything is probably the greatest challenge of the human race. If anything, it's far easier for current "social values" to impose on "individual values" than the other way around, which is why "working on yourself first" is effective as a sort of disarmament tactic for radical politics. When working on yourself, it's much easier to conform to what society expects of you than to fight tooth and nail for your own individual values and possibly alienate yourself from everyone else. Part of being a minority is that you're forced to live on either Attack Mode or Defense Mode all the time, and that's not Quality. Inevitably, no matter how sensible the advice is, it's hard not for me to be a bit skeptical of proposed avenues for social change that rely on a measure of individualism. "Sometimes, when thinking about this, I thought that the idea that one person's mind is accessible to another's is just a conversational illusion, just a figure of speech, an assumption that makes some kind of exchange between basically alien creatures seem plausible, and that really the relationship of one person to another is ultimately unknowable. The effort of fathoming what is in another's mind creates a distortion of what is seen. I'm trying, I suppose, for some situation in which whatever it is emerges undistorted. The way he asks all those questions, I don't know." Crisis of faith. Insert that one quote from Before Sunrise which lives rent-free on my head here (you know... that one) "You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It's easy. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally. That's the way all the experts do it." tfw the intrusive thoughts from the megalomaniac Disney villain inside your head start making a little too much sense As with Part 2, things really heat up in the final chapter, and I just didn't have a lot to say about it lol. Like yeah... that's it huh. You know a piece of art is really good when it's hard to talk about it because it just speaks for itself. In this case, I almost feel a little guilty because truly my difficulty with the text so far has been entirely on account of me not being able to achieve much peace of mind in the last few weeks, and now Pirsig is calling me out... On this point though, I was initially neutral on the whole motorcycle thing, but now have grown to love it. I think using motorcycle maintenance as a sort-of-allegory for life advice is really good. It allows the ideas to flow freely without fear of being too condescending and/or triggering a defensive reaction on the reader. That moment when he finally drops the allegory at the end and just says straight up "to fix a motorcycle properly you need to live properly" almost feels a little too much because of how well the book integrated the message into the form beforehand. PS: obsessed with him quoting Harry Truman, and instead of looking up the quote for accuracy, he paraphrases it and goes "that may not be an exact quote, but it's close". truly we're just saying whatever the fuck huh PSS: the part about "mu" answers is interesting and reminds me of programming, where a variable can be "null" or "undefined" or just garbage noise, and all of those are completely different from it being defined as 0 and imply completely different answers (generally that there's something fundamentally wrong with how you're tackling this problem).

D.S Films

There were two sections in this part that blew my mind. The first one was in Chapter 19, when the revelation was made that quality gave rise to subject and object, in order for it to exist. I think that is rather comforting to think that Quality is the fundamental reality, and out of that grew the relation of object and subject. Something can only have quality if it exists to be perceived, and then is perceived by an observer. Everyone is going around perceiving different levels of Quality and having varying degrees of experiences with it, and I think that's beautiful. The second moment was in the last chapter of the part which, after detailing the specifics of motorcycle maintenance, it reveals it was actually telling you how to live and exist. As someone that is feeling more and more gumption traps of life as they grow older, this is beginning to feel like the ultimate self help book, one that attempts to find the actual driving force and purpose, the Quality. Extremely excited to push on and read the final part, I've heard lots of good things.

Lucas Regis

Long and dense, as always. Two things that helped me with this part: - I rewatched CJ's "Subjectivity in Art" and was shocked to recognize the ideas of Quality all over it. It really helped me contextualize Quality outside the specific terms that are used in the book. - I listened to this podcast episode by Nietzche afficionado essentialsalts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWSYrqwFtxI) about Zen. salts has a very soothing voice and his summary and analysis of Zen is very practical and fair. Rather than making a wider point about the contents of this chapter, I'd like to just create a list of "observations" on Quality, for my sake and hopefully anyone else's, which I think will be useful for the push up to Part 4: 1. "Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined." This is one of our first definitions of Quality. The term "nonthinking process" immediately brings to mind zen buddhism and meditation to me, the concept of being closer to the experience of living when you are not thinking about it. The book doubles down on this with the definition that "Quality decreases subjectivity. Quality takes you out of yourself, makes you aware of the world around you. Quality is opposed to subjectivity." Mindfulness! 2. It struck me while reading that the concept of Quality is actually kind of post-modern. By ceding that Quality is not a concept that can be defined, you're allowed to avoid absolutist meta-narratives around what is good and right. Instead, you accept that methods to find what is good and right are only that: methods that achieve a piece of Quality, where there are many others. University learning stops being about a limiting authority, and becomes about pros sharing their tips and tricks!! "A real understanding of Quality doesn't just serve the System, or even beat it or even escape it. A real understanding of Quality captures the System, tames it, and puts it to work for one's own personal use, while leaving one completely free to fulfill his inner destiny." 3. "The world now, according to Phaedrus, was composed of three things: mind, matter, and Quality." Mind, body, and soul. Holy trinities... This is as close as the book gets to screaming QUALITY IS GOD GOD IS QUALITY 4. Part of what makes this part so hard to get a grasp on is that Pirsig, in his attempt to define the undefinable, double dips with two opposite theories of Quality. I'd call it Quality-priori and Quality-posteriori models (because it's a fun mirror to the Kant stuff). With Quality-priori models, Quality is Reality itself, and subjects and objects are both derived from Quality. We create subjects and objects to aid our understanding of the singular experience soup, but something is always left behind in translation, and our experience of Quality is the way we intuitively grasp what is left behind. With Quality-posteriori models, subjects and objects exist first, and Quality is what is created by the event in which the two colide. The defintion that maybe best unites the two models is "Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be no subject... because the objects create the subject's awareness of himself... Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible." But fuck, man! It's so high country it's messing with my head! 5. "At the cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he called awareness of Quality. You can't be aware you've seen a tree until after you've seen the tree, and between the instant of vision and instant of awareness there must be a time lag. [...] The past exists only in our memories, the future only in our plans. The present is our only reality. The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that small time lag, is always in the past and therefore is always unreal. [...] This preintellectual reality is what Phaedrus felt he had properly identified as Quality." Here we get a different model of Quality which connects it with time. The present is Quality, the past is Classic. I think this most easily connects with posteriori models (Quality is the moment your subjective perspective perceives an object before you can even intellectualize it), but it also works decently well with priori models (Quality always exists, but you are only able to perceive it in the split second moment before you transform it into subjects and objects). 6. Our time model of Quality allows us to intellectualize a difference between "Romantic Quality" and "Classic Quality". In my original copy of the book, this was displayed as a graph which kind of led me to believe these were equal, dualistic concepts. However, this time around they were displayed as a list, implying a hierarchical form, and I think that is a more useful way to organize these. It goes as such: Quality, non-intellectual, monistic reality. ↓ Romantic Quality, pre-intellectual, dualistic reality that separates the past into subjects (consciousness) and objects (substance). ↓ Classic Quality, intellectual, attempts to utilize the past to predict the future. 7. The big question that haunts Pirsig's definition of Quality is that of scientific clumsiness. People in the same classroom will of course perceive quality in a similar way because they've lived in the same culture and been exposed to similar experiences. Their united experience of Quality cannot be used as proof that Quality undeniably exists, right? After all, different countries with different art movements and theory have different ideas of Quality. This is the basic counter. With Pirsig's initial anecdote, you expect him to be fighting against the "post-modern" idea that art theory is subjective, but instead he kind of doubles down on it: "Quality is shapeless, formless, indescribable. To see shapes and forms is to intellectualize. Quality is independent of any such shapes and forms. The names, the shapes and forms we give Quality depend only partly on the Quality. They also depend partly on the a priori images we have accumulated in our memory. We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues." Our cultural language affects which facets of quality we're capable of seeing, but they're all facets of Quality nonetheless. So Pirsig is not really fighting against the relativism of subjectivity in art here, attempting to put one form over another. Rather what he is fighting in subjectivity is the idea that Quality exists only in the perceiver. Quality is not a delusion of the individual, it is a social fact that is perceived. 7b. What's interesting about this point is that it inverts the hierarchy from point 6. To perceive Quality, we are always in the process of climbing up the hierarchy. First by breaking through our preconceived notions (Classic Quality), then by breaking through our separation between ourselves and the art object (Romantic Quality), before finally having the singular, transcendental art event. This goes along remarkably well with the scientific concept that taste (sentiment) is not an absolute thing but something that is constructed. If you eat a food you don't really like for long enough, you LEARN to like it. Your physical senses becomes more capable of perceiving the quality in it. The same things happens when you watch a film genre you don't really enjoy all that much for long enough, or when you listen to a song over and over again and you didn't really like it the first time but now it's kinda getting to you. You are breaking through the intellectualized reality of Classic Quality and learning to appreciate a new kind of Quality which creates brand new intellectualizations. 8. "Quality is the response of an organism to its environment. An amoeba, placed on a plate of water with a drip of dillute sulfuric acid placed nearby, will pull away from the acid. If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about the sulfuric acid, could say, 'This environment has poor quality.' If it had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to overcome the poor quality of the environment. It would seek analogues, that is, images and symbols from its previous experience, to define the unpleasant nature of its new environment and thus 'understand' it." Probably the closest to a fully Quality-posteriori explanation we get in the book, which makes sense because it is being used to convince a group of professors who likely wouldn't be very keen on the more religious-looking priori explanations. 9. Finally, we get to the train car analogy. Here we have another dualism between "Classic Knowledge" and "Romantic Quality". This part is immediately a little confusing because it brings to mind the Romantic Quality of point 5, but it actually has nothing to do with that at all. We've fully jumped on another thought track by this point. Pirsig is instead bringing us back to the classic vs romantic dialectic from earlier chapters, while connecting romantic thought with the pursuit of Quality. We're applying the lessons learned in the classroom (back in point 2) to try and mediate the conflict of values in technology. Classic Knowledge, the knowledge taught in the Church of Reason, is the train itself, the engine and the boxcars. Romantic Quality, is the direction which the train moves towards. "A train really isn't a train if it can't go anywhere." In Part 1&2, we could easily describe the classic vs romantic dialectic as a conflict of function vs form (classic thought is interested in the relationship things have with each other, while romantic thought only cares about pretty thing yadda-yadda), but here this relationship is inverted: Romantic Quality is about the goals that desire achievement (in other words, function), Classic Knowledge is about the forms that should be taken to achieve these goals. This inversion is the direct result of an understanding of Quality as the intrinsic, ultimate goal. 9b. "One's rational understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from minute to minute as one works on it and sees that a new and different rational understanding has more Quality. One doesn't cling to old sticky ideas because one has an immediate rational basis for rejecting them. Reality isn't static anymore. It's not a set of ideas you have to either fight or resign yourself to. It's made up, in part, of ideas that are expected to grow as you grow, and as we all grow, century after century. With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. And when you really understand dynamic reality you never get stuck. It has forms but the forms are capable of change." As with the a priori motorcycle, this reminds me strongly of pragmatism. Ideas are True when they are Useful and they are Useful when they help us achieve Quality in the present. A train isn't a train if it can't move. 10. "The real ugliness lies in the relationship between the people who produce the technology and the things they produce, which results in a similar relationship between the people who use the technology and the things they use. Phaedrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. [...] It is that identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phaedrus' definition, it has no Quality." The full Quality-priori pill. Subjects and objects aren't real. Quality is both an event between subjects and objects and also everything inside and outside subjects and objects. Quality is relationships. Quality is God. Quality is the Dao.

Silver

God this book is a lot [a long long break and a realisation about my brain and how it handles reading and books later i find myself in the beautiful (i dont use that world lightly) garden of the frensh impressionist painter monet hard commiting to finishing this part, conquering this mountain finally. Reading in english is really hard, constantly fighting the tempation to mindlessly read and instead going back to actually get my mind to follow and really understand what pirsig tries to convey to me, sometimes giving up the fight, thinking the high country is just too high for me at this point in time, stopping and having to reread entire chapters when coming back because the brain didnt remember shit of what it read before] so yea i was struggling and definitly havent fully grasped the details which my fellow Lucas and everyone else picks up on well see if i have anything to say about this part [while going through my notes i notice that many many notes are just me not understanding something, pleading for examples when particular jumps and conclusions are being taken or noticing something that becomes obvious or unneccessary later on] "Quality *decreases* subjectivity." (ch. 19) i wrote "towards 'universal truths'" next to it at the time. quality being something that transcendents personal perspective and guides us all from our own positions to the truth. It reminded me a lot of Kants universal spirit and other metanarritives using a monoism. We get there later in this part of course but i found this section unique somehow idk. its increasingly clear to me why pirsig is liked by some tech/market-enthusiasts and while i dont think pirsig was particularly reactionary but the doubling down on personal change beforeinstead of societal or political change is a true "man in the mirror"-moment which i can't help but despise even though its obviously not completely untrue (see here lucas regis mode of thinking, treating conservative and progressive thoughts as different perspectives that can both be usefull in different circumstances) its really funny most of the things i found particularly interesting or was critical of are mentioned and dealt with by my hero lucas regis in their comments ;) This is also true for what i was particularly taken aback by. Pirsigs doubling down on the subjectivity thing. While i get that "Quality is not a delusion of the individual, it is a social fact that is perceived" if that means that one can turn to anything and discover its inherent Quality if one only sincerly spends enough time with it, I don't really see how to reconcile this with Value judgements. In fact that is maybe the thing i dont understand the most. If preintellectual Reality is nothing but quality, how can there be differences in Quality. Either it is Reality and everything has it or it is only in some places, so certain things have it and certain things don't i know we just compose our systems of what these "things" are upon the preintellectual quality but still i dont quite get it. "Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of man." THATS WHY WE ARE ON THE SIDE OF ART also this reminds me of medieval theology and aesthetics. The devine order in perfect harmony which is then tried to be replicated or realised in art aswell (Bach is a great example for this, striving for theoretically perfect music; intricately conceptualised works that shall reveal Gods devine world order and beautiful creation in art) Obviously the medieval order was anything but perfect but the thought was similar. Maybe something that is common to monoistic metanarratives and its followers' art. Just a connection that i formulate while writing this. During the Poincare section there is this paragraph of classic beauty, as in a beauty revealed in the harmonious order of the parts. This (as im realising rn) fits into what i wrote about Bachs music above but also Jacob Colliers music. What makes this so incredibly interesting to me is that classic beauty is in no way less emotional than romantic beauty. Bachs music is incredibly emotionally effective even though he probably didn't have that in mind. Jacobs music is criticised for being all classical and without emotion but just hearing Jacob talk about his or other peoples music makes it clear how incredibly emotional this is for him and for his fans as well as a matter of fact. The deeper classical understanding of music opens the way of emotionally connecting with this art in a way a romantic view can't, which has different affects that a pure classical view isn't able to reach "The solutions all are simple - after you have arrived at them. But they're simple only when you know already what they are" This reminds me of Savannah Browns perfect conclusion to her perfect video "Is the world getting worse" (https://youtu.be/PDFUgsE6odU?si=ca262vEOyZLrciuM) thats all ive got. There is still a week of vacation left so ill hope to finish this bohemoth before school and exams start again. I have no idea if i'll be ready for Lila or if a break from quality is needed so i can read all the other things i want to read

phil e the theyby

Ok, so this is the section where the book exploded my brain and transformed my consciousness. One thing that really stood out to me is that I don’t think this book works as a typical “philosophy text.” It had ideas and arguments, but I don’t feel like it comes anywhere close to making the points it’s trying to make without its narrative structure. Another thing that also stood out to me is that I don’t think the “Quality” framework Pirsig describes really leaves much room for an external observer to judge someone else’s experience of Quality. Obviously any philosophy can be applied to bad ends (in this case, telling someone they’re “wrong” about their experience of Quality), but because Quality exists in the Subject/Object interaction (and creates the Subject/Object divide), it seems VERY hard to imagine a second Subject accurately perceiving whether Quality is emerging in any particular case. A teacher can’t say “you’re wrong about the Quality of this work of art,” because the Quality doesn’t reside IN the art. In that way, I feel like Pirsig’s idea of quality encourages focus on your own individual reactions to the world, rather than the judgment of others and THEIR interactions to the world (although the narrator obviously DOES judge the interactions of others, I perceive him as looking at them and hypothesizing that the source of their frustration/suffering is an alienation from Quality, rather than a particularly firm or harsh judgment). Beck mentioned (way back in 2022) wondering about how this applies to interactions between people, and that’s what stood out to me the most as well. My job (as a psychologist) is fundamentally focused around interactions with others. Given my professional role, I do see what I do as attempting to foster Quality in my interactions with people. This involves both the Classical (evidence-based practices or theories inform what I do) as well as the Romantic (feeling out and using avenues of communication that I experience as Human). This probably corrects more directly to trying to foster Buber’s I-Thou relationship than anything Pirsig has said so far, but because a lot of what I talk about with people involves their interactions with objects, ideas, and the environment, the Quality idea feels deeply relevant as well. I will say that I have experienced my world through different eyes as I’ve read this section. Yesterday and today I took my two-year-old for a walk in the stroller, and I was present and aware in a way I’m usually not. I had this distinct experience that the moment didn’t need anything more; that if this was all life was, just these walks with my kid and the interactions we were having, it would be a life well-lived. A lot of the times, I think of this sort of thing as reasons for living/reasons not to kill yourself, but at its core, it’s not about Reason at all. Encountering Quality in the present doesn’t need justification; to me, it IS life itself. I think I’m going to start re-reading this book annually. It feels like it puts me in touch with myself and the world in ways that little else does, and that it supports the other things that make me feel that connection (like CJ’s work) to build a more robust feeling of being alive.

Organ

One interesting thing about the Chautauqua is that it appears moment-to-moment as though the narrator is explaining something he already knows to the reader, but I think he's actually learning for himself the contents of the Chautauqua/recovering what Phaedrus was dealing with. For example, looking at the rotisserie instructions at DeWeese's (from p. 163), he's initially "at a loss to find anything wrong with them" and only after some trial and error and momentum can articulate it as something like "this can also be thought of as sculpture." If we had Act 3's narrator, though, I think he would have much more quickly been identify a flaw in the instructions as a lack of care, since he uses that kind of manual as a stepping stone to talk about care later on ("'Step 1, Step 2, Step 3'" p. 299). So I think the narrator is actually learning and changing in substantial ways as we read, treating and thinking of other people differently, perhaps drawing closer to Phaedrus. "These fragments seem less and less a part of *his* memory and more and more a part of mine." (309) If we want to take seriously a Daoist reading of Quality—not necessarily to claim that Quality *is* the Dao, since I also think the narrator is being a little careless with "Buddha" and "Godhead," but there still may be important resonances there—then it may be worth challenging the narrator's framing that one goal or desirable result of a better societal understanding of Quality is to "make work easier, sickness rarer and famine almost absent" (p. 300)—which I read to refer loosely to "progress" achieved by civilizations, improvements to quality of life and to collective knowledge. In contrast to that goal is, for example, passage 80 of the Dao de Jing which begins, "Keep the kingdom small, its people few; Make sure they have no use for tools That do the work of tens or hundreds. Nor let the people travel far And leave their homes and risk their lives..." (trans. Moss Roberts) The passage continues, and other passages also contribute to what can be read—to be a little reductive—as an argument for anarcho-primitivism. The Dao de Jing is very wary of drives towards centralization, progress, and power. My belief is that much of the modern alienation from technology that the narrator describes is part and parcel of capitalist and imperialist drives—even if an engineer cares about something they're developing in the sense that the narrator wants, the company for which they work and which owns their labor cares first and foremost about how it will generate profit; the state similarly cares first for power. I think the kinds of changes that the narrator is calling for require not only social change, but political reorientation towards structures that can function in terms of care, not capital. He believes that political change will come if social change does, and social change if individual change (p. 304), but that may only be if society is the sum of individuals, politics the sum of societies. I'm nervous, though, that the state and capital have wills of their own—the wills that are known to swallow up well-intentioned individuals trying to change things from the inside. In other words, the narrator may find it helpful to recall that the seeds of the feeling of technological ugliness appears to be inside of not just any country in the world, but a capitalist empire. And that would raise a lot of interesting questions about how to interface ideal pursuits of Quality with realities of race, ability, gender, sexuality, etc. that he maybe hasn't raised because he's, y'know, an able-bodied cishet white man. But I don't think he's wrong about wanting to talk about how to fix a motorcycle over how to expand the destiny of mankind. It's just complicated, I guess. To close, as a hopeful example of Quality, I'd like to share what I think is a relevant passage from the Zhuangzi, another Daoist text. Cook Ding was cutting up an ox for Lord Wenhui. At every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee—zip! zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Jingshou music. “Ah, this is marvelous!” said Lord Wenhui. “Imagine skill reaching such heights!” Cook Ding laid down his knife and replied, “What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now—now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop, and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint. “A good cook changes his knife once a year—because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month—because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room—more than enough for the blade to play about in. That’s why after nineteen years, the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone. “However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until—flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.” “Excellent!” said Lord Wenhui. “I have heard the words of Cook Ding and learned how to care for life!” (trans. Burton Watson)

Beck

Full disclosure, I still have like 25 pages left in this section, but this is a hard book to read quickly! I keep having to take breaks to walk around and/or stare off into space and/or go on a metaphorical motorcycle ride so I can think about all the ideas presented. The metaphysics of Quality threw me for a loop, but after some rereading, I think they finally clicked for me. I can see why the narrator backed down from the top of the mountain, and why it drove Phaedrus crazy. Essentially he felt he had found God. Like literally God. And I understand that feeling because many of the ways I’m learning to understand God—as someone/thing that exists not in isolation but within the interactions between subject and object—really fits what he’s talking about here! “Art is the Godhead as revealed in the works of man.” But one thing that I have been thinking about that the narrator doesn’t seem to think about is Quality in human relationships and interactions. Pirsig talks about Quality and care being two sides of the same coin and he talks about this as it relates to Art and Science and technology. Care produces Quality, Quality exists in someone who cares. But he doesn’t talk about the Quality that can exist between people, and because it seems he doesn’t care, he doesn’t have Quality in his interactions with Chris. They’re not having good conversations, and like, Chris is 11, this trip has to be kind of miserable for him, his dad is just silent 99% of the time. Kids need play, there’s no play happening here. If you can experience God through fine tuning a motorcycle or making a great piece of art, which I agree with, you can also experience God through playing with your kid… investing with love and care in another person. “The true work of the inventor consists in choosing among these combinations so as to eliminate the useless ones, or rather, to avoid the trouble of making them, and the rules that must guide the choice are extremely fine and delicate. It’s almost impossible to state them precisely; they must be felt rather than formulated.” Page 267. It’s so obvious once you get it. Even the empirical scientists we revere the most, Einstein and Hawking, they didn’t just follow the rules of objectivity and the scientific method better than everyone else. They were inspired original thinkers. They had Quality when it came to theoretical physics. The ability to pursue the right questions, the right modes of thinking, because they cared and because they were capable! “The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is not to run away from technology. That’s impossible. The way to resolve the conflict is to break down the barriers of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is—not an exploitation of nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both.” 291. NOOOOOOOO BUT I’M SCARED OF THAT! This was very challenging for me… in a good way. The whole section about “getting stuck” being the best thing to push you towards Quality was very motivational. It made me want to sit down and learn something new. I’m always so focused on the Romantic side of things, art and lit and film, things that I already have some expertise in, and I love those things, they’re my primary mode, but there are so many things I balk away from, especially in the fields of math and science and technology, because they hurt my brain to think about and that makes me feel bad. But there are so many things I’m interested in that require a threshold ability to expose yourself to these realms of classical knowledge and absorb them. The book itself is helping me confront these blocks; the section about non-Euclidean geometry was very difficult for me, but it felt good once I reread it and had a better understanding. I want to know more math, I want to know more science, I want to be able to learn new tech without that instinctive fear causing me to throw my motorcycle off the cliff. I’ve really been enjoying this book a lot so far. It’s prompted a significant amount of behavioral change in me already and lead to some really great conversations with people in my life. And even in unrelated conversations, I keep hearing everything through the lens of Quality! Pretty wild.

Beck

Oh also, some meta thoughts about the structure & writing of the book itself. I find the entire framing of this book to be extremely narratively effective. The narrator’s outside conditions match his thought processes; the exterior journey mirrors and informs the interior one, and vice versa. On the one hand, it’s a very simple metaphor and could easily have been cheesy. But because we’re following a genuine train of thought that moves in unexpected ways, the outside analogues really hit and help me visualize the movement of complex thought. It’s not just a straightforward victory metaphor—the narrator climbs the mountain and reaches Enlightenment! Yippee! Instead, here, he climbs up painstakingly, he sees the top, gets scared of what it means and what could happen by following the train of thought all the way, and backs down fast—moving out of “the high country”. He doesn’t want to go there. It’s a perfect visualization in many ways. We get narrative breaks when the thought gets too heavy. Conflict, mystery, a little character, an unreliable narrator. Story that not only breaks up the difficult formal philosophy, but enhances it, because the outside movement helps us remember where we are in the thought process: we’re climbing up the mountain… we’re making steady progress down the road. Or, things are difficult and rocky, but the end is in sight. I find it all to be very well-balanced, and a very unique way of exploring what is really a dense and difficult subject area (especially at its most metaphysical).

Kylie

I feel like the narrator is going through a gradual wearing down. he’s on this journey, assembling his former self’s thoughts and work into a definable order, tracing old paths of thought like a map or a summoning, offering his own additions and perspectives, and all the while nightmares and strange events plague him. His former self uses his body as a puppet to speak to his child. Who’s child? Surely through the claims of time Chris is more Phaedrus’s than his. Can there be an assimilation? Or is our narrator about to experience an undoing? Will he wander back into that party, wake up in the same bed he slept in at the back of the house, and vanish, leaving behind a prophet in his wake? How will that effect his family? Or his work, which he seems to class as separate from his former self’s? The imagery of his colleague’s argument as a bull with the horns of subjective and objective aimed at him, the option of ignoring the horns in favor of proceeding straight down the middle, or lulling the argument to sleep like you would in a myth, was a striking image for an argument. And that’s nothing to speak of the answer he fashions. Quality is the sacred, the third element we use to build our world, The Way, The Tao, the Buddha, the image of the landscape with the separated piles of sand, the mixed sand, and the woman/man standing in the middle sorting. That statement feels true, and it also feels like claiming quality is love. Putting quality into maintaining your motorcycle, requires care, rapt attention, periods of observation, a feeling of being in tune with your vehicle so that you instinctually know when somethings amiss. That is the way we treat someone or something when we love them/it. That’s the way we treat life when we choose to love it, and treat it as a gift in spite of barbs. The blend of romantic and classic is the quality that places you firmly in the present, brandishing a binder of knowledge about the loved object and with your attention passively or actively focused. I struggle with this reading. I love this reading. I find myself rereading and mulling over it throughout the day, waiting for the crystallized thoughts to rise out of my foggy unconscious and snap into focus. When it happens it feels sacred. The theory of relativity cracked the sciences wide open in an unexpected way, and yet when einstein published his theory of relativity in 1921, he didn’t receive the nobel prize for it. Instead, he received a nobel prize for his studies on photoelectric effect… in fact he never won a nobel prize for his theory of relativity. I currently see this work of contribution to philosophy in a similar light. A book the author was HARD pressed to get published, though a lot of persistence finally accomplished it. I’m nervous and excited to see where it leads, and I’m already planning to reread.

Kit

I found this week's reading kind of frustrating - not necessarily because of a change in the text, although I did find the narrator more of a pain for reasons other people have laid out in how he's relating to Chris. More though it's because I guess I've not been having experiencing a lot of quality, not managed to be at that good flow state interaction of subject and object, for whatever reason, so the whole time he was having these great epiphanies about how Quality is the Godhead and this perfect ego-less state of being one with your craft I was like "well what if I just have a shitty day at work buddy" but then of course I got to the part about gumption traps! And that made me more mad! Because all his points are to slow down, take a break, return only when the care and value and quality can be found and not forced, which is so obviously the solution but there's maybe a lot of ego to be overcome in that stepping away and trying less hard (not to mention the difficulty when we're talking about a job rather than a weekend motorcycle hobby).

Sam Jay

I finally finished part III yesterday, and immediately started playing Kentucky Route Zero for the first time, which shares a lot of themes and likely takes some direct inspiration from ZMM. It's been a philosophically wobbly couple of days. This section covered so much, that when I looked back on quotes I had bookmarked days before, that it felt like years since I first read them. A lot of things that resonated with me personally in this one. When I first started reading this month, my husband recognized this book as one that's often given to new graduates, and I can see why. It outlines so many traps and non-quality routines you fall into in adult life, which many young adults had never encountered or even heard about before. In the year after I graduated from college, I asked every adult in my life, "why didn't anyone warn me?" And every single one knew exactly what I was talking about, and no one had a good answer. And all of my peers (that weren't immediately going to grad school or had some other kind of rigid structure- a demanding job, starting a family, etc.- waiting for them on the other side) knew exactly what I was talking about, and had also received no good answers, and had none of their own to offer. Here are some bits that stood out to me, some with rambling comments provided by me, some with none: -Anecdote on pages 190-192 about the student who got writers block writing about broad topics (first the whole USA, then just the city of Bozeman, etc.) until she narrowed it down to writing about the front of the opera house, one brick at a time, at which point she knocked out 5000 words EZ. References the tedium of creating wholly referential work vs "looking and seeing freshly for yourself." Also of getting bogged down by the enormity of the bigger picture. -Limitations of ego: "It made the kids at camp so much more enthusiastic and cooperative when they had ego goals to fulfill, I'm sure, but ultimately that kind of motivation if destructive. Any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster. Now we're paying the price. When you try to climb a mountain to prove how big you are, you almost never make it. And even if you do it's a hollow victory. In order to sustain a victory you have to prove yourself again and again in some other way, and again and again and again, driven forever to fill a false image, haunted by the fear that the image is not true and someone will find out. That's never the way." (p. 212) Sometimes, I'll start projects or hobbies and immediately start fantasizing about how they'll make me successful, likeable, and fulfilled in specific ways. I tend not to follow through on those. The interests that stick around are ones where I have no ego-driven expectations of a result, other than that perhaps I'll have learned something and will have something to show for my learning. I don't knit (yet), but I understand why so many people do. -More limitations: "He looks up the trail trying to see what's ahead even when he knows what's ahead because he just looked a second before. He goes too fast or too slow for the conditions and when he talks his talk is forever about somewhere else, something else. He's here but he's not here. He rejects the here, is unhappy with it, wants to be farther up the trail but when he gets there will be just as unhappy because then IT will be "here." What he's looking for, what he wants, is all around him, but he doesn't want that because it IS all around him. Every step's an effort, both physically and spiritually, because he imagines his goal to be external and distant." (p. 213) This reminds me of my brother. The previous bit reminded me of my sister. It's weird to watch teenagers that you care about struggling with the same things you struggled with, but they don't really absorb any advice given because their scope and perspective is smaller and different. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered if anyone had warned me, I may not have heard it. -"Quality couldn't be independently related with either the subject or the object but could be found only in the relationship of the two with each other. It is the point at which subject and object meet." (p. 242) -"'We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues. We build up our whole culture in terms of these analogues.' The reason people see Quality differently, he said, is because they came to it with different sets of analogues." (p. 253) -The idea that our sets of universal laws are not true, they're convenient (page 269ish and thereabouts). I like this. It rings true. In biology (particularly small-scale; microbiology, cell biology, molecular), the phrase "in our hands" pops up a lot in the literature. It just means, "by our methods, with our materials, performed by our staff, in our environment, etc., etc... these are the results we get." It can feel like a handwave, but it's important. My old PI told me that, halfway through his PhD, his department decided sanitize the warm room where they grew all their experimental cultures: literally scrubbing the floors, walls, and ceilings with bleach. For the next six months, nobody's experiments worked correctly. Even well-tested benchmarks and controls were completely wonky. My PI suspects there were microbes growing somewhere that contributed subtly but significantly to the overall microbiome of the room, and had done so for decades. And then suddenly, they were gone. They had removed something key to their "hands." Universal laws don't need to be consistent under all circumstances, they just need to be consistent within a given circumstance. -On quality vs style, which I also take as art vs design: "Quality isn't something you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from which the tree must start." (p.299) -"At present, we are snowed under with an irrational expansion of blind data-gathering in the sciences because there's no rational format for any understanding of scientific creativity." (p. 301) Objectively real talk: this is like computational biology right now. Someone who actually studies/works in it probably has a better perspective, but from the outside looking in, I feel like there are a lot of projects that are built around feeding massive amounts of data to a single/small team of computational biologists, who perform dark magic wizardry upon it in ways that occasionally turn up interesting results, but that then must be verified by generating more massive amounts of data. You may ask, "what about all of those giant free databases that tens or hundreds of research teams contribute to? Doesn't that reduce the need for more data gathering?" Recall the phenomena of "in our hands," referenced above. While aggregated data can often provide a guide, as applicable data points, they're completely useless 9 times out of 10. I don't know why this got me so riled. TL;DR: This is a huge problem in biology right now, and is complicated further by context-dependence. -"Peace of mind isn't at all superficial to technical work. It's the whole thing." (p. 301) HARD AGREE -"I thought that the idea that one person's mind is accessible to another's is just a conversational illusion, just a figure of speech, an assumption that makes some kind of exchange between basically alien creatures seem plausible, and that really the relationship of one person to another is ultimately unknowable." (p.306) -Everything about gumption and setbacks and traps (p. 307 to 323ish). I bookmarked almost every page at least once. When people talk about the motivation to create, I think they usually mean gumption. Motivation is too specific, because it implies a nameable driving force (ie, "I want a good grade on this assignment," "I need this video to do well so I can make rent this month"). Gumption can encompass motivation, but itself only implies the impulse to conduct a verb. -Everything about Mu (first introduced p. 327). I'd never encountered the concept before, and it makes total sense. I've started incorporating it into the way I look at the world and interact with people (not usually out loud). It feels more true than saying "no, because you've provided an utterly nonsensical or unrelated context." -"You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It's easy. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally." (p. 332) Shit, I went on for a while.

pol

You guys, I wrote so much and then I get to my notes late in the chapter and find this bit highlighted in chapter 21: "all his metaphysical mountain climbing did absolutely nothing to further either our understanding of what Quality is or of what the Tao is. Not a thing." I wrote a breakdown of the two chunks of Phaedrus Metaphysics of Quality and how I am unconvinced by all of it. But then I hit that quote above, and now I am like... wtf why. I am going to post it all below here, but... I am not very confident in its utility given that I totally forgot about this rhetorical version of "and then he woke up and it was all a dream!" Nevermind! All of that logic you processed through? All that work was for nothing. Awesome, thanks Persig. Reading over it now is kind of depressing, so I am just going to post my favorite bits and then go to sleep: FAVORITE SELECTIONS OUT OF RAMBLING MESS Chapter 17: They climb the mountain. In my head cannon they are climbing Mt Sacagawea, because that is my favorite hike in the Bridgers (just north of Bozeman). Hyalite peak is nice too, but there is a majesty to Sac that is unforgettable. It's not too hard if you start from the north side of the range, it can be done in a day. If you start on the south side (as I imagine the characters doing, off-book, using their own orienteering, it can take 2-3 days with a couple very demoralizing false summits). "You climb the mountian in an equilibirum between restlessness and exhaustion." This whole bit about climbing mountains tired to the bone and making ever step count is lovely. "Where there were differences it was usually because two papers were close in Quality" So that means Quality is not discrete, it's continuous (you can have two things that are "similar in Quality"). How did you know they were "similar in Quality"? How similar? How did you deterimine the Quality values? Were they 5% similar or 30% similar? Why is this even useful? WTF are you even measuring? Are you controlling variables? Data or it didn't happen... Teachers transfer skills and knowledge. That includes "quality evaluation". The fact that Phaedrus has to respond to a student with a totally legit question of "How do we know what's good?" with "You just see it." Is bad. He is a bad teacher. And as a PSA, if anyone in a position of power over you (teacher, significant other, parent, etc) uses this kind of logic on you, be careful, it is a hallmark of abusive relationships. "It's your fault you don't get it." "You are too stupid to see the Quality." Then the "Quality exists" argument... Ths is my biggest hangup. We have two options presented to us in support of the existence of Quality: Define it and prove that it exists by its definition AND/OR Do not Define it, but prove that it is a prerequisite for existing things. He is unable to do the former. He goes for the latter, and.. I am unconvinced. This is the crux of the matter for me too. If he can't convince me that Quality exists, then none of the rest of the book matters. So, someone fix this for me: 1. Art (poetry, etc) requires Quality otherwise it cannot be evaluated as "good" or "bad". - Why not? I can use the complexity and precision of its construction to determine if it is Good. I can use its cleverness to determine if it is Good. In short: I can use any one of the existing and definable characteristics of the artwork or artist to evaluate it as Good or Bad. No mysterious Quality required. - Why Not? I can use subjective opinon. It is good if I like it. It is bad if I do not. It is good if likes it. It is bad if they do not. No mysterious Quality required. 2. He asserts that not all things would cease to exist without Quality, there would be lots of trash and life would be "dull and not worth living". This admits that Quality is optional, it is not required. "It might exist" is not good enough for this kind of argument. So, I don't think Quality exists. The emperor has no clothes. I think he is combining a vague amalgamation of general characteristics that he is refusing to enumerate, combining that with "do I like it", and calling it Quality. Please correct my logic! How is it not subjective? Quality is not measurable, and is evaluated differently by different people is subjective. That's practically the definition of what subjective means. Even if he refuses to admit it by "dodging the bull" or whatever. But so what. So what if Quality is subjective. So what if it is a dogma in the same category as the Tao or Buddah or God? Those can still provide comfort and inspiration and all of the cascade of beneficial things that religious faith provide to humans. It doesn't have to exist to do that. I am going to extend Beck's idea about Phaedrus finding God. That sounds right to me. He found God and called it Quality, but then invented a whole baroque philosophical framework around it so that he could avoid calling it "Faith" and instead call it "Truth". I have a bunch more thoughts about later chapters which I actually care about, but didn't get to. I don't know if I care or not if Quality exists. It's not necessary for the beneficial lessons in Stuckness and Gumption. You don't need it. Let it go. It will only make you crazy and keep you up too late. Though I am always interested in other people's thoughts.

pol

Another all-nighter for me. The sun is coming up, and I am going to go watch. But this is the bit I care about the most. This part is personal for me and so I had to get it out. Maybe at the end of all of this I will compile a "Pol's director's cut" of a book report essay and post it somewhere, My text editor says I have so far written 9k words about this book, and I am probably going to double that with the combination of this chunk and the final summary for Part IV. The only things left in Part III that I want to talk about are Care, Stuckness, and Gumption/Traps. CARE: (A subset of) The Most Important Question Care (and its more relevant beating heart "attention") are subjectivity itself. They are also your best tool for self-reflection and self-knowledge. They are evaluative tools, not indicators of quality (big Q or little q). Your attention is only directed towards things you care about, it is what defines the act of attention. You do not pay attention to things you don't care about. You only pay attention to things you do care about. What you care about can be a decision, but is almost always unconscious. For most of the waking moments of your life, you are not able to choose what you are paying attention to. What you "care" about. You just care about what you care about. In my experience, WHY you care about something, WHY your attention is spent on it, is the most important question you can ask yourself in the pursuit of self knowledge. The practice of meditiation is the practice of focused examination of your attention (and care). Not the practice of control of attention (though that might come as a side-effect), but the practice of the examination of it. The more you understand your attention, the more you understand yourself. It is the totality of personal subjectivity. It is why you notice some things and not others. Why some things make you feel things, and not others. It has very little to do with the object of your attention, and everything to do with yourself. In this process of self reflection, Quality has no role to play (even if it did exist). What you attend to (care about) has no bearing on the external world (it says someting about you, not the world). There is no Quality to your attention, it is your consciousness. It is you. It is more like a sunrise than a sculpture, you don't craft it, you experience it. You can get better at examining it and guiding it, which will change it (that's what learning is, it changes your neuroanatomy, which changes your everything). It is a skill that can be practiced which can provide more detailed insight into the question of why you care about what you care about. These are not new or novel ideas, seek out any competant mindful meditiation practioner for more info. I did not come up with any of this, but it does match my experience with meditation and 20+ years of therapy and self-exploration. The book binds Care to Quality in a way that I think is both unnecessary and unproductive. It is in the weeds and in my opinion, both wrong and not helpful. But fundamentally, I do agree with the book that Care (attention) is important, but I see Quality as an unnecessary distration when considering the importance of Care. STUCKNESS: (A subset of) The Most Important Skill The book describes the notion of "stuckness" with the metaphor of a difficult-to-remove screw. He coerces the concept of stuckness into his epistemology of "classic" and "romantic". He goes into an overly long metaphorical digression of knowledge as a train, and american politics, and he is off in the weeds. In the end the big reveal on the problem of stuckness is "it is bound to disappear. Your mind will naturally and freely move toward a solution." The real stuckness is "running from the stuckness through the cars of your train of knowledge looking for a solution that is in front of the train." My summary of this whole line of inquiry is: You will get stuck on problems. The problem will solve itself if you are patient and think about it differently. This seems like obvious advice buried in a lot of noise. But, it leads up to my favorite line of the whole book. My favorite one! I think it should have _been_ the whole book, because my reading of the book is that it is about a pedantic crazy person stuck in their own head. But back to the topic at hand, my Favorite Two Sentences in the Book: "Stuckness shouldn't be avoided. It's the psychic predecessor of all real understanding." I highlighted the shit out of this bit. But sadly, he does not stick the landing. The very next sentence is: "An egoless acceptance of stuckness is a key to an understanding of all Quality, in mechanical work as in other endeavors." Boo. To top it off, he finishes the stuckness lecture with some pedestrian advice on dealing with the stuck screw: "go to the library and look up the right tool for the job" or "call a friend" or drill/burn the screw, or invent a new way to remove screws". It is kind of hilarious that he fails to mention the best solution: try a penetrating lubricant (though the library book would probably mention that). Fuck this is frustrating! The screw doesn't even matter. It's about the pattern of stuckness, and his ultimate advice is: figure out how to fix it. THANKS BOB. I AM DISAPPOINT. So why do I Care so much about this section? Because Stuckness (and its more relevant beating heart "failure") is the most important lesson in life. When you do something deliberate, you have an expectation of outcome. Failure happens when that expectation turns out to be wrong. It tells you that your model of the world is wrong. In my experience, learning how to handle failure in your life is the most important skill a human can develop. Full stop. Confession: I have a deep personal relationship with failure, I am biased to Care about it becuase I live with it on a daily basis. I care for people who are terrified of it, paralyzed by the possibility of it, who let it define their very worth as humans. It is really important to me when people are giving advice about failure that they take it seriously, and not fuck it up. I take it personally when they engage this topic in good faith (he appears to be!) and then fuck it up. In my opinion, this book fails to address failure in two critcal ways. 1. The book only discusses a subset of failure ("stuckness"). And it spends a lot of time in the semantic weeds. Most of it isn't even about stuckness, and he doesn't ever make it up the summit to the more important concept of failure. What the book gets right (accidentally I think) is that thinking differently about failure (framing it as the "predecessor to all real understanding") is the key to real understanding. It is not Quality: it is Failure. 2. I think that the book does a poor job of clearly explaining why failure is so important. He asserts that it "key to an understanding of Quality", which, for him is sayin that it is the key to understanding God, so there is no higher purpose, but for me, who is unconvinced that Quality exists, I need other reasons for failure to be important. Actionable reasons that I can apply to my own life. This is what I think is tragically missing from this (critically important) part of the book. My attempt to convince someone that Failure is the Most Important Skill of Human Life. Failure is the best way I know of to determine what I am capable of. Not just what I or somone else thinks I am capable of. What I am REALLY capable of. My limits. If I am not failing, I have not found them. As you get more skilled at the art of Failure, the world opens up. You can take more risks. You learn that there is a spectrum of failure, and learn how to fail gracefully, fail fast, fail carefully, fail in ways that give you more data, fail all the time, every day, in little ways. You become proud of a good failure, and a bad failure is an opportunity to learn more about failure (though they are still painful). Which failures are surprisingly trivial, and which ones you should avoid at all costs. And then on the other side of the Failure Event: how you respond to the failure. How you handle it. How well you learn from it. Some failures hurt other people. Those are extremely important to acknowledge and learn from as they can result in mental trauma that will keep causing more damage you until they are treated. The Story of your Failure is So Important. You get to decide what it is. What is the story that you tell yourself about failure? Is it an endless process of learning and discovery? Or is it the fumbling incomeptence of an irredeemable fuckup? Pay extra close attention to the story you tell yourself about your failures. I have a few failures that I am not proud of, but they are a tiny minority. BUT the are extremely important failures, those failures I am ashamed of are foundational to my personality. On the other hand, I am proud of most of my failures, and I love talking about them. It is exceedigly rare that at the end of a project I don't have a set of "if I was to do it again, I would change X, Y, Z..." That's failing. That's learning. Failure is my favorite topic to ask candidates in hiring interviews. "What would you have done differently?" is the "business-speak" version of "tell me about your failures!" My favorite people to work with are curious and skilled at failure. They try a lot, they fail a lot, they know how to handle failure when it happens and not panic. They know how to take risks. Failure is The most Important Skill you can learn in life. The only way to get better at something is to practice it, and as you practice failure, you get better at failing. This is what persig was fumbling towards. He was trying to say "you need to learn how to think about failing differently to become a better human", But he couldn't get there, he was hung up on Quality. It has nothing to do with Metaphysical Quality. Failure is complimentary to expertise. It is used to both develop expertise, and measure it. Expertise is being skilled at something, it already has a definition, it doesn't require any extra metaphysical semantics to exist or be useful a concept. It is applicable to anyone's lived experience just as it is. THERE. Done. Shit. Ok, the wrap-up with the bizarre Gumption Trap meandering. Gumption is a fun word. But it is not a better word than "passion", "grit", or "flow" at describing motivation. The sciece of attention and motivation is a hot field, full of interesting neuroscience, psychopharmacology, and psychology. It is not surprising that NOBODY who takes this field seriously uses the word "gumption" to describe motivational behavior. Also, when I take my prescribed ADHD medication in the morning, I get filled with gumption. Quality connection in pill-form, I guess. I dont' understand why this is in the book at all. Anxiety, Boredom, Impatience. Is anyone persuaded by his opinion of these "traps" and how to solve them? It all seems like such a reductive and naive take on each of these interesting states of mind. I am not going to go deep on this, but I would rank Anxiety as a secondary emotional state (caused by other things, many different things cause anxiety. can be gnarly difficult to resolve). Boredom is a loss of passion, and I have very little to say about it as it is exremely rare for me. It's hard to get bored when your favorite hobby is thinking. (Me and Bob have a lot in common.) Impatience is another secondary emotional state. You are in a hurry for some reason. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Meh. None of this matters, it should have been edited out. I don't know what "work" it is doing intellectully. What gaps in his philosophy this fills. What unclear things this clears up. It's just... an irrelevant lecture from an out of touch boomer who thinks too much. Zing.... :finger-guns: (though I identify as GenX, thank you very much)

Adison

okay to start i want to echo some of becks comments about the structure of the novel and how it adds some lovely things. i love that they are traveling through out this and that as he settles into the monotony of riding or walking, it allows his brain to open up into the chataqua. it reminds me a lot of how my own brian works and it makes all of the philosophy feel a lot more grounded and natural. you don’t feel like you’re missing any of the narrative action. as i’ve said before, im in love with the way he captures entire huge feelings and moment in one or two sentence moments. here’s a couple i really enjoyed. “But pines and sunlight are stronger than any dream and the wondering goes away. Good old reality.” (chapter 24) “We keep passing unseen through little moments of other people's lives.” (chapter 24) “There are some resort billboards along the road and some kids beneath them, almost as if part of the advertisement, gathering pinecones. They wave and in doing so the littlest boy drops all his cones.” (chapter 26) “At Bend we stop and have supper in a modern restaurant in which people also come and go without looking at each other. The service is excellent but impersonal.” (chapter 26) on to the philosophy. i am so relieved that the relationship between the classical and the romantic was explored in this part. i was jumping for joy when he confirmed my suspicions that they were not only intimately connected, but different experiences of the same thing. romantic quality describes the instantaneous relationship between subject and object while classical quality describes the relationship that forms over many meetings. “In the past our common universe of reason has been in the process of escaping, rejecting the romantic, irrational world of prehistoric man. It's been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an understanding of nature's order which was as yet unknown. Now it's time to further an understanding of nature's order by reassimilating those passions which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part.” (chapter 25) i really resonated with this view that passion, intuition, and emotion are integral parts of understanding reality. when trying to describe quality for myself and determine how i knew it existed, the only answer i could come up with was that i felt it. it is an experience. “I keep talking wild theory, but it keeps somehow coming out stuff everybody knows, folklore. This Quality, this feeling for the work, is something known in every shop.” (chapter 24)

annie liz

before I started part 3, I re-watched Subjectivity in Art and I feel like I gained a shit ton more from the experience of watching it than before (insert comments on aesthetic truth and aesthetic testimony u know u know). My experience of CJ’s art changed with my growing mental arsenal on quality and it’s beautiful in its difference each time anyways, book! it’s really hard! it’s also really good! I went pretty fast through parts 1 and 2, but I had to take a couple steps back on part 3. Hell, I had to stop and retry to attack the Euclidian geometry section MULTIPLE times, usually coming away with failure, but eventually getting a clawed hand onto a firm grip of the cliff, and we kept climbing. I think this book has the potential to be fundamentally life changing in my behaviors and understanding of how I interact with the world. “But the fact that the old routes have tended, because of language rigidity, to lose their everyday meaning and become almost closed doesn't mean that the mountain is no longer there.” (p. 191) The connections between language and philosophy is incredibly fascinating. Linguistic determinism and how the way we are taught to identify the world alters the way we THINK and PERCIEVE it blows my mind a little bit. I wonder if Phædrus’s understanding of the Tao, and fundamentally, Quality, would have been different if he had been able to process it in different languages. Chapter 17: For the record, moose are fucking terrifying. The relationship between the narrator and Chris just destroys me. There’s so much there and none of it is said and it’s surrounding them and snuffed out of them and it hurts it hurts it hurts. Like Beck said above, Quality is between people, too, and it’s agonizing to watch the narrator figure out fundamental points of connection in our reality and yet constantly look away from, demean, and/or reject those connections with Chris. “He speculated that the other pilgrims, the ones who reached the mountain, probably sensed the holiness of the mountain so intensely that each footstep was an act of devotion, an act of submission to this holiness. The holiness of the mountain infused into their own spirits enabled them to endure far more than anything he, with his greater physical strength, could take” (p. 214) Feels a lot like art. I was confused by his “world without quality” thought experiment in chapter 18 when he eliminated sports. Is he saying that games require quality in skill of play? Is the difference between football and a pile of stones quality? Is sports made up of high quality statistics? I know this is a tiny thing and probably completely inconsequential to be hung up on, but while the rest of his hypothetical world made sense to me, the sports did not; I guess I wanted to try to figure out more what Phædrus’s working “definition” (or lack thereof) or idea of quality was by examining what he thought the world would be without it “I just don't know. I just don't know what it is. It isn't just YMCA egotism that's making him this upset. Some minor thing reflects badly on him and it's the end of the world. When he tries to do something and doesn't get it just right he blows up or goes into tears” (p. 225) …fuck ! There’s more of a dance between binaries in this section and I appreciated the depth that conversation revealed; using Quality as a cleavage term between classical and romantic made sense as both a differentiator and a bridge. Duality as both existing and rejected by the concept of quality itself; understanding the dialectics and also moving beyond them; classical beauty and romantic technicality. I also realize that I was hasty in my frustrations about his descriptions for classical vs. romantic worldviews, as they were important settings and foundations for him to develop OFF of and deepen, especially as Phædrus operates from a classical thinking background (though not necessarily a classical thinking mindset) “And so: he rejected the left horn. Quality is not objective, he said. It doesn't reside in the material world. Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not subjective, he said. It doesn't reside merely in the mind.” it is in fact, purple baby!!!!!!!!! it feels decidedly criminal that philosophy overlaps with math so much. it actually makes a lot of sense for our world’s reality and also the book, but im bad at math so im mad about it “It is not the facts but the relation of things that results in the universal harmony that is the sole objective reality” (p. 275) “A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares. A person who cares about what he sees and does is a person who's bound to have some characteristics of Quality” (p. 283) I LOVE this passage. Sensing care in something is sensing Quality and this puts it so well. “This eternally dualistic subject-object way of approaching the motorcycle sounds right to us because we're used to it. But it's not right. It's always been an artificial interpretation superimposed on reality. It's never been reality itself” (p. 290) this reminds me of nonlinear perceptions of time! Re-writing concepts of past/present/future time and looking at it from the angle above instead of 2-dimensionally. They’re not separate, not necessarily, they’re happening all at once and they used to happen and they will happen and it’s sick. “The past cannot remember the past. The future can't generate the future. The cutting edge of this instant right here and now is always nothing less than the totality of everything there is.” I spoke too soon! “With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. And when you really understand dynamic reality you never get stuck. It has forms but the forms are capable of change.” (p. 292) I don’t know if I agree that stuckness is completely impossible in dynamic reality, I’d need to understand that on a deeper level, but this description is very good. It’s also very fascinating to look at Pirsig’s views on technology… in the 70s. This is pre-high-tech computers, pre-cell phones/smartphones, pre-ultra-internet connectivity. When he talks about transcendent connections with technology and the fusion of nature and humanity into something more… oh what storms comes. I’m sure he’s probably said something about it, since he only recently passed in 2017; it’s be interesting to compare and contrast. “The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part.” Pirsig I’m sorry I doubted you. I also really appreciate how the narrative contributes to and elevates the prose and philosophy. I’ve never seen philosophical concepts presented this way; it’s beyond clever and incredibly powerful thematically. Incredibly excited to finish part 4 and then reread it all again and gain more. I'm really glad I joined this.

ellen

my struggles in part two made for a zigzagged exhausting hike up to the mental highlands and part three was a sick fucking snowboard down the other side baby!!!! yeehaw!!!!!! i believe strongly that what makes Art impossible without People is that human /bodies/ are essential conduits from wherever Quality resides into our reality. that’s why individuals instinctively know what Quality is &also disagree with each other all the time about it, why specific artists who have a certain “eye” or a unique way with words or precise mastery of their craft leave such long legacies and are so impossible to mimic. Quality passes through your Soul on its way to the world. not “a” or “the” Soul—/yours/. creation welling from some ‘special’ thing inside individuals I don’t believe is controversial at all, only the part about ‘channelling’ instead of sourcing Quality yourself. in an earlier post i talked about ZMM’s genre meshing and what i held back is that it’s impossible for me to separate, mentally, discussion of phaedrian Quality from discussion of divinity. if Quality isn’t holy it’s something just like it. i left my church awhile ago and I filled the space God used to be with Art. not to be overly personal on main but now i’m wondering if all I did was stop going to regular mass times; if there’s a distinction or if it matters. around this point in the book I started applying a theological [genre] lens to my reading. if anyone else had a similar experience or wants to discuss it, feel free to dm me and i’d love to compare feelings on this :) due to my understanding of art as something uniquely produced through the connection of the self &the world, the split experiences of the narrator/phaedrus as two selves and one body—as the narrator conceptualises themselves and as pirsig seems to rationalise his own trauma—I made a lot of connections in this part not just from the narrator + phaedrus that weren’t just philosophic but personal too. part of the work for me here was to take steps back on occasion & reprocess passages/ideas from a more ‘clinical’ perspective, trying not to project my own Disorders (tm) into my reading and thus muddy the waters. they’re already muddy enough, what with the chaos produced between my beliefs that any work should be able to stand by itself alone conflicting w/pirsig’s outright statements that this is in many ways a biopic—and the intent of the book, the philosophy it imparts with you, is intended to reach past the barrier of narrative and directly into your cortex, right? so already the boundary of real and unreal in terms of the ZMM experience is almost meaningless &that’s before we’ve even talked about chris, and real-life-actual chris being shot. on an emotional level, i think pirsig did an amazing job writing someone terrified of their own brain, convinced of their genius but not of their goodness, flailing to connect with the most important people in their lives while also horrified about the possibility of being seen by them &at the same time not even being sure what would be seen or who they are bc they’ve compartmentalised pieces of themselves away to SUCH a degree that he’s convinced that there are “parts” of himself that people like better & pieces which aren’t fit for consumption. phaedrus is presented in-text as the original and real personality in the narrator’s body; chris’ real father, the one his family loves more. the narrator is an imposter and a coward and an ideas thief. big part 4 spoilers for the rest of this paragraph!! but this reading is then confirmed and fully realised by phadreus’ reemergence at the end. and to me that was so obviously coming that it made the lead up to it like watching a tragedy, in a literal sense; the narrator’s fatal flaw: conviction of his own impermanence. the ghost wins. everyone in this head knew it would. although I never truly ‘liked’ the narrator, the somber slow walk to his death didn’t so much strike a chord w/me as it dropped an entire piano on my head. ignore everything I said in earlier posts about the emotional writing being unconvincing. and then remember it again bc with this exception I was right. apart from obvious contention between the narrator and phaedrus about Who Gets To Have The Brain, the reason i bring up my theory of the body here is that it connected sharply to the “train of knowledge” metaphor discussing classic/romantic knowledge+quality/the church of reason/romantic reality/traditional knowledge. page 288 onwards. selecting the ‘correct’ facts and becoming stuck on “‘objectivity,’ a doctrine that there is a divided reality of subject and object” (288) could both be understood as a barrier between Quality and the material world due to a blockage in the Soul/the body. you forget critical traditional knowledge and fuck up your job at the nuclear warhead factory. you’re stuffed full from eating free breadsticks and have an extremely negative art moment watching everybody else dine on michelin star glazed honey hams. when creating art, it’s a similar thing. sometimes you make great stuff about your Tortured Agonies and usually you make great stuff despite it. my writing is better when i’m not off my mind on extra strength tylenol night and ready to cut a bitch for some stagnant pond water. but at the same time, my writing is better than other people because i’m just a better writer. for whatever reason, I was born with a clearer connection between my Soul to the Quality, and intentionally developing that connection at the same rate as other ppl, I had a head start. If they worked harder than me they could get ahead, which is why the work is necessary. in other words: “you want to know how to paint a perfect painting? it’s easy. make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally. that’s the way all the experts do it.” (p332) i really really got a lot out of this section. i know i'll be thinking about a lot of stuff in it for awhile. the parts i resonate with i really resonate with and the parts i keep rejecting i'm determined to puzzle out why.