Comment on Melanie's Post (Priya Dhairyawan)

                My confusion regarding the character of Phaedrus was also intensified this week. While there are some signs which may indicate that Phaedrus and the narrator are not the same person, I still have a feeling that they are. Even though Phaedrus's background story does not match that of the narrator, we were never really given a clear background story for the narrator. There is still a chance that something in Phaedrus's life changed, in turn matching his new story with the narrator's story. The narrator still has one child and a wife, so there is a possibility that something happened to the other child. Also, regarding the location, the narrator could have easily moved to a different place. In addition, the revelation that Phaedrus is in fact a real man only adds to the theory that Phaedrus and the narrator are the same individual. Melanie's comment on Phaedrus and the narrator's tendency to spend time with those unlike them supports the idea that the two are the same being. Typically, people tend to spend time with those who are similar to themselves, as they can relate to one another; so, I find it a bit odd that both Phaedrus and the narrator lean towards others unlike them. With each passing chapter, I am beginning to see more and more similarities between Phaedrus and the narrator, which only leads me to believe that they are the same person. The narrator knows far too much about Phaedrus for the two of them to be simply friends. 

Response to Zane's Post

I agree with Zane, in that this weeks reading has made Phaedrus seem more human. As I said in my post, this week has caused me to relate more to Phaedrus because he seems to have just as much trouble as I do with the horrifying unanswerable questions that plague philosophy. Phaedrus’ troubles make him seem more human and for that I am happy because it makes me feel less stupid while trying to understand this novel because, like Zane, I simply cannot understand all that the author mentions.

What I found interesting about Zane’s post this week is his mention of how, in being Phaedrus’ opposite, DeWeese, may give us a clearer understanding of Phaedrus. While reading about DeWeese and his relationship with Phaedrus I had not considered the insight that this character may bring us into Phaedrus’ character. DeWeese has the potential to answer many questions about Phaedrus and why our narrator seems to believe that he would have some reason to believe that DeWeese would think he is Phaedrus. In answering why a scientifically reasonable man like Phaedrus would be such good friends with an abstract painter, DeWeese is character could also bring to light more reasons for Phaedrus’s instance on answering the unanswerable questions. I think that Zane has the right idea about DeWeese’s character though I may have to disagree with him about enjoying this novel.  

Response to Monica's

I agree with you in the fact that these two chapters helped; yet the book is still frustrating. I have become aware of the similarities you and I both have when it comes to the ideas of the narrator and Phaedrus. I think there is a parallel and in a way they both describe the way in which the reader feels throughout the novel. I understand the fact that he fanatically teaches because he has doubt, but I would not say it was hope. This may be the case with both the institutions of the university and the church, but I do not believe Phaedrus contains hope for the students he sympathizes with. He is teaching them something h does not fully understand and agree with. This lack has led him to try to fanatically teach. I agree with you also on the fact that the author may never gave us a clear reason, but that will really frustrate me. I would really like to know what the point of this book is. Other than philosophy and the adventures (which are not really adventurous) that John, Sylvia, Chris and the narrator go through. The amounts of confusion that can be found in this book are endless. I still do not know why he has fragments of memories if they are not the same person. The narrator is unsure and is trying to find it for himself more about Phaedrus, so I do not understand how they are related. I do not believe they are the same person, but I no longer think it is a ghost haunting him either.

The Unanswerable

This novel continues to frustrate me in its constant questioning of what is unknown and our ability to ever know it, however this weeks reading has, in a way helped me come to terms with it. This came from learning of Phaedrus struggles with the same concepts that have been bothering me since I started this novel. He decides to give up on find an answer for the questions of philosophy, however in his intelligence he is unable to truly give up. This is where the “Church of Reason” comes into play. Phaedrus’ Church of Reason is simply a denial of the ineffectiveness of Reason. Phaedrus does not fully grasp the reason because it possible to grasp. Yet he believes in it and its ability to explain anything because it is simply to painful to believe that it cannot. He becomes fanatic for the concept of reason because he holds out hope that it may still end up showing him the answers that have eluded him. His fanaticism is something he hopes to share with his students, however he resonates with the ones who fail and do not share his love of reason, because they, like him have been by it. This comforts me because in the reading of this book reason has failed me as well so I, like Phaedrus, must simply give up on the parts of reason that I cannot grasp and focus on what I can.

I have, reluctantly, come to terms with the possibility that this author may never give its readers a clear answer for the questions he instincts on bring up, however I am still put out by the mystery around the relationship between Phaedrus and the narrator. The way in which the narrator discusses Phaedrus memories as if they are his own suggests that the narrator is Phaedrus in another life and the similarities between their mannerisms and opinions also support that theory. However when he talks of those memories he discusses them as if they’re blurry and unsure, which confuses me because I get the feeling that they are not his own, even though he access to them. Then comes the German spy movie that the narrator discusses. He implies that the artist, Phaedrus’ friend and opposite should for some reason believe that the narrator is Phaedrus, though he is not. This has lead me to a state of complete confusion in which I cannot begin to guess exactly what the relationship is between Phaedrus and the narrator, and, given the author’s apparent like for unanswerable questions, I fear I never will. 

Response to Shannon’s (Zane Mandell)

I completely agree that this novel has gone so far in depth in the subject that it is trying to discuss that it has flat out gotten lost in thought. You and I felt that similar relationship with the narrator where we seem to be as puzzled as him. But maybe this is something that the author is trying to do. Maybe he is trying to get us as lost as he is to prove a point that he has to come. It is a theory, I hope I am right, but we will find out sooner or later.

This sense of confusion that is brought about by Pirsig has really become obnoxious. I think you would agree with me when I say that the author is rambling at this point. I hope that there is some point to all this and that it comes together at some point but who knows. It is hard to really know what is going to happen. That in itself leads back to the narrator’s most important point. Knowing that you cannot know is really hard to accept. I think at this point as readers we are going through the process of acceptance but have been unable to achieve it yet. Maybe the whole point is to prove that we all have our own Phaedrus that haunts us day in and day out, where we try to piece together who we are but are never truly able to. Maybe statement like this come too early in the novel, and should be left for later when a true judgment can be made.

Phaedrus & the Narrator

In this week’s installment, we (finally) get a little more information on the life and history of Phaedrus. After the group conversation over the book and hearing Zane’s speculation that Phaedrus is actually the narrator, I had come to believe it. Now, despite being given so much information, I feel even more confused. I do suppose that it will all become clear as the story progresses, but it is still one of the most frustrating aspects of this novel. I usually enjoy a little frustration from a novel, since it feels worth it once all becomes clear, but considering the pace that we are reading and the actual content of the story, it is becoming increasingly annoying.

                What is interesting is that we now know that Phaedrus is not a ghost, but a real man, considering the fact that the narrator is about to stay with a man who knows Phaedrus personally. Now, it could be that the narrator is still talking about himself through Phaedrus, considering the fact that they both know the same man, especially when the narrator explains the frustrating relationship he held with DeWeese, because it seems very similar to the frustration that the narrator has with John and Sylvia. What threw me off was the very extensive and detailed description of Phaedrus’s life after having “given up”. We now learn that Phaedrus moved to Nevada and, later, Mexico, got married, had two children, began to “put on weight”- I assume he had given up on his philosophical crusade. None of this falls with the narrator’s back story.  At this point, I am completely lost.

                Aside from this confusion, I wanted to comment on the whole frustration between Phaedrus and the DeWeese’s, because it is all too familiar, and I can sympathize with him. It is very irritating when people have the adverse reaction to the one that you were expecting, especially when people need to take you seriously. Still, I think the problem that both the narrator and Phaedrus have is the fact that they do not interact with people like them, which brings me to wonder how they would interact with each other, should they be two separate beings. If they would just converse and spend time with people more like them, they would not feel the same irritations they feel towards those that they do interact with. On the other hand, I do believe that it is better for them to interact with people unlike them, despite the exasperation they feel, because it gives them something to think about, and it is important to learn how to interact with different kinds of people. If they just expected everyone to act like they do, they would be selfish people. I do not think they are, though; I believe they appreciate the differences.

Piecing Together the Past (Zane Mandell)

            I believe Phaedrus is becoming clearer and clearer. The speaker obviously has such a close connection with Phaedrus. He has most recently been trying to piece together things that have happened to Phaedrus in order to understand him completely. At this point the speaker still does not know everything of Phaedrus and he is scared of what he does not know. We surely will soon learn more of Phaedrus as we meet his opposite in life – DeWeese.

            Phaedrus is a complex man that is for sure. But looking into this week’s reading I am able to see him as more of a man. The speaker presents him in situations that are more human than what we have been used to in previous readings. He is set communicating with another person, a person he does not understand and intrigues him all the same. Especially in the case of his time at the college, I now see Phaedrus with more human characteristics. In particular I see him full of angst where he is trying to fight what is but he is aware that fighting is futile and will do nothing.

            This brings me to the biggest point I got from this week’s piecing together of who and what Phaedrus is. I have said before that a major theme that Pirsig has presented knows that you are unable to know. Well this week Pirsig seems to have expanded on that idea where he shows Phaedrus living and knowing that he in unable to change that which should and can be changed. It is one thing to be able to accept the idea of lateral thinking, but now knowing that your efforts will result in nothing leads to a much more important question. Does our existence have meaning? If a person realizes that their life does not fulfill a purpose or really change the essence of something, does it really matter that we are here? Hopefully this will be expanded upon in further readings as the concept intrigues me in the context of the novel.

            Even while I do enjoy the concepts of this lengthy work I feel I must say that it is becoming more and more confusing. The philosophical debate that occurs between the narrator and himself is one of a much higher level. I am unable to grasp everything the writer is mentioning. And I know it. How about that? I am beginning to accept that there are something things that you just cannot know.

The endless amount of questions

Honestly, this novel has gotten to the point where it no longer frustrates me; I just do not understand it. The narrator contradicts himself, going on these long tangents that lead into something else. When it finally comes together at the end, there is still a sense of confusion. At first, I was glad that we were learning more about Phaedrus, but then we realize that the narrator is still learning about Phaedrus. It is wonderful to know that he gave up, but gave up on what? He has a wife, two children and a dog, is this supposed to help us? The narrator does not seem to know the full story. He is scared to open the tombs that have been left untouched for so long and he dreads going to the university. He then enters a huge discussion of the university in which you learn and gain knowledge versus the set of buildings and accreditation. I understand his point of view, or Phaedrus’, but for the most part people do not look at a school in the way he thinks it should be seen. Neither of them have control over this fact. Phaedrus mentions how he prefers his students who are failing. They remind him of himself, but when he lectures, he teaches them something he does not believe in. He confuses them because they are trying to learn something he does not agree with and they keep thinking he is a fanatic on the idea. He is only a fanatic because he has so many doubts about reason. I thought this was the most interesting part of the two chapters. People believe in religion, in politics, etc. so faithfully because there is nothing concrete. Even science has its doubts and people love to back up science with fanatical ideas. Science would be thought of as the exception, but this is not the case. I would of thought it would have been the other way around. Why believe in something that you constantly doubt? But I guess this adds to the list of things about the society that confuse me. He goes into detail on the church, criticizing it and trying to make sense of it all. Truth is, it is not possible. I again somewhat understand where he is coming from, but that is something that happens in society and cannot be changed. I have been brought up in the Catholic Church and have seen hands on that the priest who is following God has an issue sometimes with the institution itself. And this brings me to the fact that these two chapters coincidentally brought up the institutions of church and state, with religion, as well as the university. It is the only part I actually understood in its entirety. I have an understanding of fragments, just like the narrator.

Curiosity (Priya Dhairyawan)

     After reading these last couple of chapters, I am still left frustrated at the lack of a solid plot. It seems that each chapter consists of the narrator simply listing different thoughts he has and talking about Phaedrus. The setup of this book is different from most in that there is no standard plot that involves all of the characters; in fact, I sometimes feel that the narrator is the only character because the book is focused greatly on him. One aspect of the book that remains constant is the narrator's attachment to thinking. At one point in the last few chapters, he mentions that he would try to "develop the characters of John and Sylvia and Chris" (120-121) if he were a novelist. I think this characterization ties in very well with the narrator's character. It is now well-known that the narrator has a passion for thinking, which is a trait that would be useful for him to develop characters. He is definitely an observatory man, so his knack for watching and analyzing would be beneficial had he become a novelist. At one point, the narrator exemplifies his observatory nature when describing the cabin to his son. "I notice things about the cabin too, which I point out to Chris" (127).
     The narrator also mentions that Sylvia and John view him as "reserved and remote" (121), due to his constant thinking and removal from his physical state. I can definitely see where John and Sylvia are coming from. It is natural to think that someone who seems in his or her own world is removed from the situation because he or she is not actively participating; they probably assume it shows disinterest in a certain subject. I do, however, see how this is a problem for the narrator as well. He cannot help that he is a thinker. We can all relate to lateral thinking, when one thought leads to another and the cycle just continues until someone brings us back to reality. But this is not the narrator's fault. He is who he is and he cannot change the fact that he is a natural thinker.
     One thing that I am still curious about is that the narrator has remained nameless. Thirteen chapters have passed and the main character's name has not been revealed. I have always thought that authors leave out characters' names in order to give them less importance, but this seems odd in the case of this narrator. He is by far the most important character in the story, so I cannot help but wonder why Robert Pirsig has not provided his name.

The More You Look, the More You See (Zane Mandell)

            This philosophical novel only gets more complex with every chapter. While certain things become clearer, others have become harder to explain. I feel that has fit with the idea of lateral thinking that was discussed thoroughly by the speaker in chapter ten and eleven. Lateral thinking is something that we all do. We think about one thing which brings up another thought. This then leads us to another thought and before you know it you have moved so far away from the initial idea that it is hard to understand how you got there. This is a problem that the speaker keys in on with Phaedrus.

Phaedrus we now know studied philosophy (what a shock). But the reason that he was lead to that subject area is because of this concept of lateral thinking. Science is something that tries to answer the questions that we do not know the answers to. Phaedrus wants to know the answers, but he realizes that he was asking the wrong questions the whole time. Phaedrus was obviously very bright for his age as it is referred in the text that he was at ‘The University’ studying the sciences at age fifteen. That in itself is very impressive.

But to the point the lateral thinking ran Phaedrus eschew. Out of college and out of science and into the Army. He is sent to Korea and this becomes one of the most eye-opening experiences of his life. Unfortunately we really do not know what that experience was we just know that the narrator has said that there was something that truly changed his way of thinking. This set him back on course. I wonder was this momentous action or event was. Hopefully we will soon know more.

But the major point of these chapters is there seems to be a strong bond or connection between the speaker and this mysterious Phaedrus. He does not seem so mysterious to me any longer. The evidence is clear and I believe that Phaedrus is in fact the speaker, well a younger form of the speaker. The way that the narrator has referred to him implies that the two of them have the same memory. While it is not in stone yet I do not see any other logical conclusion. “The more you look, the more you see.” (141) I believe that this statement has become at this point self-evident.

Mixed Feelings (Priya Dhairyawan)

                While I still believe that I am progressively losing interest in the story, I do feel that these last two chapters were slightly more interesting that the story has been recently. The narrator made some good points in the last couple chapters because he made me think about what he was saying, rather than simply state his own opinions. He has been making several statements that make me question my previous beliefs and thoughts. For one, he said that Albert Einstein believed that nature determines experimental data, while lesser scientists feel that scientific knowledge comes from nature itself. I had never really thought about this idea before, but I think Einstein is right; human ideas and opinions are what determine scientific knowledge, while nature merely adds facts to support or reject theories made by humans. Humans are the entities that decide scientific knowledge, which may or may not be correct. As we know, scientific beliefs have evolved over time. For example, humans used to believe that the earth was flat, but now some find it even humorous that people used to believe that theory. The earth itself has not changed since that previous belief, but rather humans have. Human beliefs are what have transformed- not nature. I agree with Einstein’s idea. I do, however, think that I have a natural inclination to side with Einstein’s ideas. Regardless of my opinion on this matter, I think the fact that he is renowned for being a genius may sway me to side with his ideas on different matters. I feel that there is a natural bias to believe that an individual who was so intelligent is correct about most scientific matters.

The narrator also explains that Phaedrus found it interesting how an individual could have a certain hypothesis, but after the person started testing it, he or she came up with several more logical hypotheses. I cannot help but relate this to the narrator's thoughts while he is on his motorcycle. During his long rides, the narrator consistently has endless trains of thoughts. One idea leads him to think of something else, and the cycle continues until he stops driving. I think this is similar to Phaedrus's idea regarding hypotheses, as they both claim that one thing leads to the next. Also, I remember Zane saying that he thinks Phaedrus is the narrator in a past life, and the recent reading has led me to further believe his supposition. The narrator seems to know a lot about Phaedrus- things that most people would not know about others- so I am starting to see why Zane has this theory.

The High Country of Mind

           With the conclusion of another two chapters in this novel I must admit that I am still unsure of my feelings towards it. While reading the novel I get terribly frustrated by the continual and repetitive rambling of the narrator and his obsession with the confusing concepts of abstract thought. It troubles me how simple the plot of the novel is and the novel is simple because nothing can really happen with half of the novel spent in the narrators mind. However, despite my frustration, I truly enjoy the beautiful writing of Pirsig and find myself reading passages out loud because they are so eloquently written. In fact the beauty of the writing almost makes me forget about how repetitive it is and makes me interested in abstract concepts that usually bother me.

            This week’s abstract concept is one that was introduced to us early in the year with our first real lecture, the idea that “the more you know, the more realize you don’t know”. In the novel it was introduced to us with Phedarus’ frustration and admiration for the process of forming a hypothesis. These feelings came from the fact that forming one hypothesis will, in some strange way, always lead to a multitude of other hypotheses that are reveled once the other has been discovered. This realization leads to the more disturbing realization that with the cultivation of human knowledge and experience we, as a species, have reached a point where the knowledge we have has brought about terribly abstract questions that we are not equipped to answer. In other words, with what we have come to know we have come across things that we may never know.

            This brings about the idea of the “high country of the mind”, a place where such questions are explored by the select few who choose to explore them, a select few including individuals like Phaedrus and our narrator. These individuals realize that there is “no real profit to be made” from embracing abstract questions that the current scientific method is incapable of answering, however they explore it anyway because they find some sort of beauty in it. I think that may be what bothers me the most about this novel, the numerous abstract concepts that the narrator chooses to explore when it does not seem as though he is reaching any answer.  

The journey or the destination? How about frustration?

Well first off, I am very confused at this point in the book. We still do not know who Phaedrus is. He literally can be anyone, the narrator, someone from the past, an old friend. I have no idea at this point. Can we just find out already? Pirsig now brought is the topic of the scientific method in full detail. I agree with him in the facts that there will always something else to experiment and investigate and while you are doing that, something else will come up. That is what science is, but we have to ignore some of the hypotheses you come up with and focus on one. You can later move on if you would like.

            Pirsig did bring up a point again that I find to be very interesting. Which is better, the journey of the destination? I have been asked this question multiple times and the theme then came up in the novel. They actually ask this question at in one of the rides in Epcot. I began thinking about it then and I honestly do not know what I think. It honestly depends on the situation. If you are talking about the road to college, the journey is important because you are getting to the college you want to, but is the college the best part of the experience? Vacationing must be the only certain destination that is better than the journey. Well for me at least, but this is not the case for the narrator. He would rather be philosophical on his bike travelling to his next location, rather than getting to the destination. He says this clearly when he says its is better to travel than to arrive. It frustrates me to not have a solid answer, and I know there are not many solid answers in lif but I just want to know what the book is about.

            This book has gotten to the point where I do not like reading it. It is hard to si down and read and most of the topics are things that make me think and give me extra topics to discuss with myself internally and get more frustrated. I see the narrators point of view when I begin to do this. I am becoming convinced that the author is reflecting how the narrator feels. Frustration at its finest. 

The Discomfort of Antiscience

            My feelings for this novel are as capricious as ever; once again, I find myself enjoying one week’s reading in comparison to disliking that of a previous week. Although I do not care much for Phaedrus’s backstory (considering the fact that I have yet to figure out or accept whether he is real or not), I do appreciate the use of his origin story to convey the information and conclusions made by the narrator himself. The storytelling and philosophy-rambling finally flow seamlessly into each other, although I must admit that these two chapters deal more with philosophy than plot line, but I cannot complain because the narrator is touching upon ideas that I had not realized or contemplated myself. Now that I have, it upsets me almost as much as it upset Phaedrus.

            The whole concept of the scientific method being far from scientifically efficient, or in the words of the narrator, “antiscience”, is particularly striking for me. This is because for as long as I can remember, every single science course I have taken since I began going to school opened with learning, relearning, and reestablishing the scientific method. I have the entire sequence memorized, and for the most part, it makes sense to me. For those who dedicate more neurons for the sciences and uncovering scientific mysteries, the scientific method has become a staple procedure- and yet, as brought up by the narrator, I have to agree that it does bring the scientist further from the truth.

            I became a bit unsettled as I continued to read about “antiscience” and what “truth” is, and whether or not matter exists despite our only means of defining matter being through our senses. This is my issue with philosophy: the more you think abstractly, the more you find yourself running in circles until you are overwhelmed with unsolvable mysteries. This does not mean I disagree with abstract thinking, for that would be another extreme; I only mean to say that, for my own purposes, I try not to delve so much into abstract thinking because, like Phaedrus, I find myself becoming increasingly depressed and confused. I always stuck to my passion for the sciences because I believed that they provided truth as firm as it could possibly get in my lifetime. Upon further reading, this is where I hit a roadblock.

            Being so dependent on the truths of sciences, I became even more troubled when presented with the idea that facts and truths do not even lie in nature- to quote Einstein, “Nature only provides experimental data.” Thus begins my inner turmoil. I guess I will have to agree with the narrator on trying to find a less upsetting middle ground for these ideas.