I am getting a little sick of our narrator categorizing people
based on their knowledge, or rather, what he believes their knowledge is. I can
understand what he is basing himself on, when he connects motorcycle
maintenance to whether or not we choose to use our heads correctly, but I think
he is being too general about it. When he mentions that “not everyone
understands what a completely rational process this is, I think he is confusing
ignorance with indifference. I believe everyone has their niche, and I am
positive that there are some things that he may not understand and thinks one
must have some “knack” or “affinity” for it, when in reality, it is just as
much of a “rational process” as motorcycle maintenance. This is not to put down
his hobby- I just think he is being too one sided about linking his passion to
philosophy. It also does not help that he is on a trip with people that do not
share the same hobby as him, which I believe leads him to over think. If I were
him, and I was so passionate about something, and I was on a trip that is literally based off of the damn machine,
why would I deliberately spend my time with those who do not understand or love
motorcycles like I do, even less, seem to accept technology overall. I admire
the depth of knowledge that he holds for his trade- but I am pretty sure many
people can relate to him, just with different passions. This classic-romantic barrier does exist, but people are not perpetually stuck on either side- they just have different pathways to connect to them. For him, it is motorcycles.
A blog dedicated to the in depth study of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and its author Robert M. Pirsig, by the 2nd period AP Literature Class group.
Melanie’s post shares some of my current frustrations with the novel but make certain statements that are unfair. Her attack on his use of motorcycles as the be all is important because he uses it for everything. He is in no way being arrogant about the motorcycle; he is just using it as the centerpiece for his discussion. And to the major point of your post I think the statement that you make about his one-sided is fair but not seen correctly. Philosophy in its nature is a way to decide on certain subject and how they are. There is no way to play the field in philosophy one must take a stance. There is a science to the way he decides to look at things; he explains his science through the form of his motorcycle.
ReplyDeleteI can see that your problem is truly rooted in the idea that you do not agree with what he is saying. That is understandable as we all have our own opinions. This week’s reading was especially rough, but if there is to be anything to be gained from the novel you must have an open mind. The key to his explanations seems to be blossoming more through his relationship with Phaedrus. Phaedrus is the key, soon you will see.