Personally, I do not think any of the doctrinal differences are important: “I have come to sow the seed of love in your hearts so that, in spite of all superficial diversity which your life in illusion must experience and endure, the feeling of oneness through love is brought about amongst all the nations, creeds, sects and castes of the world.” --Meher Baba
I also like to see how far I can challenge myself to recognize superficial diversities as illusion, e.g., thou and that; subject and object; BillyTM and not-BillyTM, for starters…
Seems like Meher Baba could have said what Pirsig said here:
Mikefule: Is he disparaging classical reason??!
Renowned Anarchist Mikefule said this, though in other words (I think).
**Tat Tvam Asi
(Thou Art That)
(Based on Chandogya Upanishad)
Here’s an snippet. For the whole story, see
Why does Pirsig reference the Chandogya Upanishad? What is his attitude toward classical reason? What the heck does it all mean?
The book deserves a re-read. I first read it for a “Psychology of Identity” class–the professor rode a motorcycle…
It’s a very long time since I read that book - but not nearly as long as it will be until I read it again.
As I dimly recall, Pirsig makes good use of the motorcycle as an example of synergy: the parts working together to produce something greater than their own sum. A motorcycle goes faster than a box of motorcycle components.
He also makes good use of the image of careful maintenance of a motorcycle as a way of describing an almost mystical discipline in doing things properly to get the right results. You might not fully understand how a carburettor works, but if you have the discipline to adjust it and maintain it properly, then it will work. So far, so good, and very pop philosophy.
But as the book goes on, it goes on, and on, and on. It is easy to seem profound by making self-contradictory statements (<<How could changeless Being change or transform Itself …>>).
As for this one to which you drew my attention: <<…because they feel the inadequacy of classical reason to handle what they know are real experiences. >>
This carries so many passengers it should be a cruise liner. How’s about, something like: “Because some people, not fully understanding their own experiences, and not fully grasping (or being schooled in) the disciplines and techniques of applied logic and reason, jump to the conclusion that, because they are personally unable to come up with a rational explanation, no one else could, and therefore an arbitrary mystical explanation will suffice.”?
Very few things written by intelligent well-meaning people are entirely devoid of merit. Pirsig was (is?) intelligent and I credit him with being well-meaning. His book is not devoid of value or insight, but it is little more than pop philosophy from its time. It’s right up there with Jonathan Livingstone Seagull in my estimation- that puts it above Margaret Thatcher, or Keith Harris and Orville, but somewhere below Spike Milligan or John Cooper Clarke.
P.S. So the professor rode a motorcycle. So did I. Although I am down to a scooter pro tem, I kept an old 2 stroke on the road through thick and thin for years, sometimes doing 400 - 500 mile days without once resorting to a professional for repairs. This has little bearing on my philosophical aptitude, or the professor’s.
That is exactly, almost to the word, what a very intelligent colleague of mine said about 17 years ago when we discussed the book.
It may be true, and I realize you’re not attacking it, but it is also one of the few books that come around that encourages people to lead more examined and even better lives. It did this for me, I know.
“More examined”, as in “The unexamined life is not worth living”, by any chance? Just asking.
Almost anything that encourages people to think for themselves has to be good. Those people who really do think for themselves may well reject the arguments in the book that prompts them to do so.
Plato suggested the ideal Republic would have a philosopher king. Even he wouldn’t stretch as far as a philosopher electorate!
Where I have a problem with pop philosophy is when it strays into certain specific territories:
Pseudo profundity. The easiest way to present the banal as profound is to write a self contradicting sentence - but yet that is also the most difficult way.
Knowing reference to sources the reader is unlikely to check in detail. As the Peshwari Nan, Singh Kaur Swihm himself, said in the Elegiad of the five apostles of the seven virgin saints of Unkhlestan, “The unchecked reference is a source of great credibility for the scribe too lazy to research if his reader is likewise idle.”
Ridiculous pseudo jargon: the light-enhancing prose-poesy of the idealic textual simulacrum is of great educationalistical beneficiality.
In my view, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was little more than entertainment with a worthy image. You can learn lessons in life from watching one of the better soap operas, and learn virtue from contemplating the folly reported on the front pages of the tabloids. Alternatively, you can buy this year’s unputdownable classic. Last year it was Eats, Shoots and Leaves. before that, it was “The Strange Case of the Dog that Barked in the Night” (Or didn’t. Whatever. ) These are the adult versions of Tracey Island or Cabbage Patch Dolls: we must have it this year, because by next year it will largely be forgotten.
Perhaps I’m missing your point - I’m taking a break from cleaning bathrooms as my mother is arriving tomorrow and spending Christmas with us - but while those other fads do pass and are forgotten, Pirsig’s book has not suffered the same fate. Do you think it likely that some 20 year old 30 years hence will “discover” Eats, Shoots, and Leaves as Andrew has Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Possible, but maybe not likely. But there is little logic to these things. Along came Oasis, and a few people rediscovered the Beatles. Along came Sid Vicious and some people rediscovered Eddie Cochran. Along came the Rolling Stones and a few people rediscovered Howlin’ Wolf. See how Narnia has been dusted down as someone was looking for a fantasy franchise to rival the world-dominating Harry Potter?
The theme of poor puntuation and spelling won’t go away. In fact, the chances are that spelling and punctuation will continue to deteriorate as email and text encourage a sloppier style of writing. Someone else will write an amusing-but-serious book on the subject. A reviewer will compare it to the “classic” ES&L and a few people will go in search of ES&L. It will become a “minor classic” for those in the know.
Pirsig’s book is most famous for its catchy title. Almost everyone who is likely to have a vague interest in philosophy or in self-help books is likely to have heard of it. It jumps off the shelf because it is recognised. That’s why I bought it 20 years ago. An equally good book called “Towards Self Improvement By Understanding Synergy” would not sell in the same way.
Of course, you could argue that a writer who used that title would be less amusing and accessible than Pirsig.
Just asking.
) These are the adult versions of Tracey Island or Cabbage Patch Dolls: we must have it this year, because by next year it will largely be forgotten.