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.
I agree with Zane's idea that lateral thinking applies to all of us. We cannot help but relate things to one other, so naturally we think about different topics that have little correlation to one another. The narrator's long rides are indicative of this idea. He, too, cannot help the endless stream of thoughts that flow through his mind. One after the other, ideas about random topics move through his mind. I can definitely relate to this type of thinking. One thought, no matter how simple, will always spark a new thought from running though my mind, and the cycle is hard to break, especially when there is no outside force to put it to a halt. The idea of lateral thinking is something that can be applied to everyone, so I feel that this relatability makes the story more interesting for readers. Perhaps this is why I found these last couple of chapters to be more interesting than the other recent chapters.
ReplyDeleteI am also beginning to see why Zane thinks that Phaedrus and the narrator are the same person. Zane brought up this theory during our discussion video, and I have been trying to find evidence of that in the text since then. Now, it seems rather clear that the two are the same person. The narrator knows far too much about Phaedrus for him to be simply an observer or someone who was friends with Phaedrus; it must be him himself. The narrator could very well be Phaedrus in another life, or even just in another time.