The topic I chose is...

            I chose to go with the topic about the journey versus the destination. From all four opinions that I got back, they were split between this one and the one about finding himself. I have decided that they both have to do with each other and I brought them together. This will make it more interesting and give more topics to talk about. I am actually quite excited. This is weird.

             I thought it would be quite interesting to tie in all the opinions of the different characters and give specific examples. One would be John and Sylvia and the fact that they were so determined in reaching something far away from technology, which they believe they needed, that they just rode their motorcycles in hope to get there.  The issue about technology itself has many different opinions on this topic expressed in the novel. There are other characters that feel the same way, such as Chris, but the narrator has a completely different standpoint. This also relates to finding himself, which I could speak about, bringing in the other topic that everyone seemed to like. I think the journey of reaching the realization that Phaedrus was his prior self before hospitalization is better than the destination of knowing. Also Phaedrus’ journey to find the definition of Quality was much better than reaching the destination of becoming obsessed and hospitalized. I do not believe that he actually found himself, because he is still distraught. Sure, it may be the resolution for the novel, but not for his emotions. Phaedrus wants answers, and the narrator as well. When he figures out it is the same questions because it was his prior self, there is no way to escape. The destination has trapped him. He actually enjoyed himself when he was on the motorcycle. It was peaceful, and he was able to just think as he watched beautiful scenery pass by. He no longer has that. But then again, he did resolve the conflict with Chris…

Thesis: The view on the satisfaction of the journey versus the destination arises in multiple characters in the novel. It is a defining characteristic of their personlaity and leads to other thoughts and actions.

John and Sylvia- destination
Chris- destination
The narrator/ Phaedrus (how he finds himself)- journey (both metaphorically and physically)

Response to Monica and Shannon

1.       Monica: you clearly enjoy your third theme, and I do agree with you on it. I would like to see you further discuss it, for I do believe it is important to analyze the downfall of the main character who, for a majority of our first readings, seemed to be all-knowing, rational, and sane. It is a daunting topic, for there is fear that life as we know it may be futile, especially if we spend our lives attempting to answer questions that just lead to more, and more, and more, until we either give up, break down, or die before we even reach that decision.

2.       Shannon: I really enjoy your third theme. The narrator himself claims that we are working on a cycle and it is called ourselves, and yet the narrator struggles to work on himself his whole life and the duration of the trip. I would like to see your research and opinion on whether or not he succeeds in finding himself, or if he just digs himself into a deeper hole than he had originally woken up in. 

Topics

1.       The conflict between the consciousness of Phaedrus and the consciousness of the narrator, and the decision of whether one is “better” (which can be defined in many ways). We are lead to believe that Phaedrus was unstable, an unsuitable husband and father, and difficult to deal with, whereas the narrator seems calm, rational, albeit still not the best father. Yet, at the conclusion of the novel, we find that Chris liked Phaedrus more than the narrator, and that the narrator felt most comfortable, most “zen” as Phaedrus. He describes being Phaedrus as “living in a dream”, and describes his current life as “living in reality”, so are we to assume that he is running away from his reality, or was Phaedrus his reality all along.

2.       What I found interesting as well was the concept of hypothesis and the monotonous scientific method. Phaedrus found himself developing hypothesis after hypothesis, sometimes developing three as he concluded one, and it can be said that this drove him to insanity. Was this because he could not find a happy medium to bridge the classic-romantic barrier in terms of the sciences and philosophies that he contemplated. Is it better to live in a shroud of ignorance or to venture as deep as possible into what seems to be a never ending circle of questions without answer?

3.       The classic romantic barrier and how this affected his relationships with other people. Can it be concluded that he found his harmony in the conflict through motorcycles and maintenance of them? The motorcycle itself is a classic a priori, but the art maintaining it, riding it, and understanding it can be considered romantic as well. The narrator seemed to spiral back into inner turmoil with Phaedrus when he stopped riding the motorcycle and started to climb the mountain- was the motorcycle his method of therapy, of keeping Phaedrus at bay?

4.       What is to become of Chris, and could it be concluded that Chris were to turn out like his father as well? We are informed that Chis has a mental problem, though I would like to disagree because I believe he was being a brat the whole time, but should we follow what we are told, does that cycle repeat, and if so, is the narrator in fear of being unable to reach out to his son and stop him from continuing the circle?

Response to Shannon and Priya (Zane Mandell)

Shannon:

I think that the first topic that you approached was by far the best one that you had. The way you were able to quickly relate the journey idea to that of John and Sylvia and the idea of technology will open up plenty of doors to talk about a lot of material from the novel. The analogies idea you have doesn’t seem to be supported well enough; that is why I think it the weakest of your four themes. I also think that the second and third themes that you approached are very similar in nature and would end up overlapping with each other. I personally think that the journey and destination idea is the one you should pursue.

Priya:

I believe the topic of technology is the best of the four that you have presented as it will allow the largest scope of any of the other topics. I feel like the ‘Chris is a foil topic’ would serve as a support for something of large scope. While your third topic does tend to approach the same ideas as Shannon’s first topic I believe that the development you currently have is far to cliché for the term paper. Your fourth topic is intriguing in where the paper may go because I am not very sure based on what you have where it could go. I honestly don’t think any of the topics that you are weak, rather I see that some may make better supports for others. But after thinking everything through I feel like your best topic may be the one that discusses technology.

Topics

          I found that the narrator seemed particularly concentrated on the ideas of both classical and romantic reasoning. Classical reasoning and Romanitic reasoning are essentially described as opposites in the novel, however despite that the narrator was convinced that quality could not be discovered without a combination of the two. I found that the question of how to possibly make the two, seemingly opposite ideas mesh into one conclusion was a central issue in the novel.

       Another issue was brought up in the question of quality, and how to define it. It seemed the the narrator was terribly preoccupied in a search for quality however when he tried to define it, he was only able to define it with ideas that are not completly concrete either. this search for quality in anything and what it is that makes something good is an interesting idea explored in the novel.

      In connection with the theme on quality is the question of the existence of any truth in this world. There are many instances in which the narrator discusses Phadreuses search for the answer to something that was simply out of his reach. This inability to find that something is the what ultimately leads to his mental breakdown and the procedure that turns him into the narrator. The idea of there being questions that we cannot answer is brought up early on with the discussions on the nature of hypothesis in that they only bring about more questions, is also eluded to in the narrators questioning of the actual truth in supposed facts, and is summed up in one of the last chapters with the quote " if he doesn't get the answer he just drives and drives until he gets one and that leads to another question and he drives and drive for the answer to that one essentially pursuing questions never seeing, never understanding that the questions will never end. Something is missing". I must admit that I prefer this theme to the rest because it also has strong connections to other books we have read and brings about the idea that if we know nothing then we are everything at any given time (this is a reference to my last blog post in which I discussed the idea's connection to the concept of Schrodinger's Cat).

        My final idea is essentially the quote that is on the cover of the book,"it is the journey, not the destination". The idea that some people, like John and Silvia, can be so preoccupied with getting somewhere that they do not realize what how their time traveling can enrich them and allow them time to think, and think deeply. This can journey can be anything from a motorcycle ride to the mountains, to the journey of life. In the journey of life people can be so preoccupied with getting into heaven, or the question of what comes after death that they do not, at the time live life to the fullest. The narrator is in a way guilty of this in that he spends so much time thinking about the unanswerable questions in life that he is not really able to make connections with people. 

Finding My Zen (Zane Mandell)

1.   Quality is the framework of how everything is, yet it will always be undefinable because it is in the nature of the idea. Quality is the central concept behind how we perceive everything in reality. Quality is the key – “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” (283). Quality can be discussed through the perception of the classical thinker but can only be truly realized by the romantic thinker. Yet one needs to have a deep understanding of this duality to be able to realize the entire picture and see Quality.

2.    We are all subject to bounds within the way we must think. It is said that the Church of Reason emphasizes the inability of the learner and not so much the ability. The Church of Reason is still vital to the process by which we deduce how things are. If we were not limited in one set way to think, then there would not be resultant repercussions of those who think outside of the box. The Church of Reason serves its highest value in the attacks that we make against it. It is the format by which we can chip away at the old to understand the new.

3.      The classic clash between Romantic and Classical Thought – the “Subject-Object Duality” (517). Where Quality is the midway point between these two: reality, romantic falls under the pre-intellectual study and classic falls under that of the intellect (317). Classical then can be subdivided further into studies that are subjective and pertain to the mind and the object which pertains to the ‘matter’ of things. Romantic Thought will follow under the emotions of the body that is why it is considered pre-intellectual, and the classical though than focus on what goes on after the pre-intellectual. Quality is the solution to this classic problem.

4.  The Internal Struggle within the narrator connects everything in the book; it is the foundation that Pirsig lays in order to voice the philosophy that is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The struggle that the narrator is having within himself is not evident at first but slowly builds as we learn about the nature of the subject that the narrator jumps right into. The struggle is shown though throughout the book, right under the nose of the reader but does reveal itself until the end. The whole reason for the trip that the narrator is taking across the countryside is in order to find his Zen. The old vs. the new, the fear of the rise of technology, parenthood, and the feud between Phaedrus and Institutional Authority all exemplify the struggle of the narrator.

Term Paper Topics

Technology has proved to be an important topic throughout the novel, and has demonstrated both its positive and negative attributes.

                As we see in the story, the narrator has a different view about technology than John and Sylvia do. Technology can be used as an art form, as it is for the narrator, or it can be an intrusion in one’s life, as it is for John and Sylvia. Throughout the book, we are exposed to the good and the bad of technology.

Chris serves as an important character in the novel, and his presence is a key component to the narrator’s growth.

                Chris initially reveals some of the tension that exists between him and his father, which provides some insight into the relationship that the narrator has with not only Chris, but society as a whole. Chris also helps his father realize his identity as Phaedrus. The past becomes apparent to the narrator once he pays closer attention to Chris.

The motorcycle trip serves as a significant changing period in the narrator’s life.

                As the journey comes to a close, we can see how the narrator discovers his true identity as Phaedrus. In addition, he is exposed to the impact he has left on Chris’s life. Throughout the journey, he is completely transformed back to his initial self as Phaedrus.

Phaedrus’s insanity is a topic that presents itself at different times in the novel, and leads to the question of whether or not he was actually insane.

                Phaedrus is said to be insane because of his constant obsession with the idea of Quality, but his attitude towards the subject can be justified. Clearly, he is a philosophical man who is keen on learning, so it is natural that he is always thinking of new ideas. His train of thoughts that drive him to “insanity” are part of who he is, and his fascination with Quality does not necessarily make him insane.

Themes

The narrator seemed very enthralled in the issue between the journey and the destination. I think this would be a good theme because Chris, John and Sylvia all had different opinions on this point and there is many different ideas. The distinction that they have creates their characters. For example, John and Sylvia run away from technology, but the destination is what they find happiness in when achieved.

Another theme I find would be interesting is the identity crisis that the narrator has. After being hospitalized he was trying to figure out who he was. He felt like a different person, and the past version of himself he named Phaedrus. His parenting skills changed as well.

Also, a theme that I would write about would be finding oneself. It may be cliché, but the narrator did this the entire time throughout the novel. The resolution was when he put all the pieces together, and even solved the problem with Chris. It affected the way in which he communicated to others.

A fourth them for the term paper could be the different analogies throughout the novel. I found the sand one to be very interesting. Multiple ones were made and that was the use of description. The way that these analogies showed the feeling of the narrator was impatful.

The end

      So the book is finished, and the big reveal has come, the narrator is Phaedrus, or I suppose was phaedrus,  he isn't anymore he is a different person and that is what has caused the strained relationship with his son. During most of this book I was extremely occupied with finding out who Phaedrus and the narrator were, because I wanted to learn the answers to questions that had answers. Now that the easy questions, the one with answers, are no longer questions I must move on to the harder ones. The ones that keep you up at night, the philosophy.
       I think that the basis from which we can derive the point of this book is in one paragraph in the second to last chapter of the book in which the narrator explains how phaedrus and his son feel. It reads, " if he doesn't get the answer he just drives and drives until he gets one and that leads to another question and he drives and drive for the answer to that one essentially pursuing questions never seeing, never understanding that the questions will never end. Something is missing". Nothing is missing, it is everything that causes the trouble. This book in its entirety proves to you that you can not know anything. Phaedrus serves to be the intelligent person that we all see ourselves to be, at least what I see myself to be. We relate to him because we too have questions that we cannot answer, and by the end of the book the narrator lets us know that they can never be answered. He calls to question the integrity of facts and science, the one thing that we can hold as true, and he allows to realize  that we know nothing. Now what does that mean for the fragile psyche of the unsuspecting reader who happens to be forced to read this book by her obviously cruel English teacher? We'll it makes her think, it makes her think far too much.
      Now I must warn you that what is to follow is not an idea drawn solely from Zen and the Art of Motercycle Maintence but also has been greatly influenced by Notes from the Underground, the Big Bang theory (the TV show) and the fault in our stars, a book I happened to have read in the last week. This idea is that if we know nothing then at any given time we are both infinite and terrifyingly mortal (and in that I am talking about our souls or counciousness or whatever it is that makes us, us). This comes from the idea of strodinger's cat. A cat is put in a box with a poison and the box is sealed. Once that box is closed the cat is at the same time both dead and alive because there is a possibility of both and the knowledge of neither. It is only once the box is opened that we know that the cat is infact dead or alive (now this may not be the correct interpretation of the experiment because Wikipedia had a lot of big words I simply did not understand, but this is how I'm choosing to interpret it). So if a lack of knowledge causes opposites to be at the same time true, then we are all living in a perpetual state of Schrodinger's cat syndrome. We are everything because we know nothing and it makes my head hurt. I think I may have gotten a bit off topic here but I just wanted to express what this book made me think about and that's the true point of books like this anyway, to make you think.

Questions

Honestly, I am glad this book is over. It sounds bad, and I usually do not hate to read, but I found this book to be quite boring. It was hard to even open the book. I did not think it would be that hard to get myself to read it. But I cannot say that I didn't learn anything. Most of the time the topics were quite interesting, just very extensive. I completely understand the title of the novel because all the philosophies of Phaedrus (and the narrator) come together. Between the classical and romantic reasoning and gumption, it is a perfect culmination of the entire novel. I also found the Zen Buddhists to be quqite interesting and relatable to the novel's ideas. The end of the novel did answer all the questions I had, but I still do not seem satisfied and I do not really know exactly why. I found it to be a relief that there was a resolution to the conflict between the narrator and Chris. They were being separated physically, and that is why they could not connect. This is what I find sad and am glad that they could resolve it. I found it to be interesting that resolving the issue required the explanation to both Chris, as well as the reader, that the narrator and Phaedrus are the same person. This was quite predictable and we understood most of the story since the last time we posted, with just a few unanswered questions. I had an idea of what was going to happen, but it had not been confirmed. We now know about the mental institution and how the narrator finally came to terms with being Phaedrus. I understand that his memory was obliterated, I just do not understand why all of this was necessary. He was going through the same philosophical journey and trying to piece things together. But should Chris really have been there? His mood made things worse at some times, but better at other times. So I am not really sure what I think of him. I do feel pity for the narrator, but still do not understand why he did not want to come to terms with him and Phaedrus being one. What was so wrong with that? Did he not want to return to that mental state? Questions always end up arising in my head, and these I know I will not have any answers. How frustrating!

The End

I am so happy that we are finally done with this book. I found the majority of the story to be quite repetitive and boring. Yes, there were some points that the narrator made that were kind of interesting, but, for the most part, I was not really a fan of this book. The narrator made me feel like I was on the road trip with him, which I suppose is a good thing. However, with that came the boredom that I can only imagine hours of driving will evoke. It felt like I was forced to hear him ramble on about every single idea he had because there was nowhere else to go. Also, I was glad to discover that the narrator is, in fact, the same person as Phaedrus. Zane brought up this theory in the beginning of the story, and as I read more and more, I began to witness signs that this may be the case. It would have been disappointing to learn that the two were not actually one, since I became so convinced of this idea.

                One idea that I did find interesting was when Phaedrus claims, “everything is an analogy” (352). As odd as it may seem at first, I do believe that this is true. Everything can be compared to something else if someone tries hard enough to merge the two. It may be a long-shot to connect certain things, but it can always be done. Nothing is present on its own without any relatability to something else; everything in the universe is intertwined in some way.

                The conclusion of this novel has left me feeling somewhat uneasy, but I have no idea why. The book has answered the questions that have arisen throughout, but there is still something missing and I cannot place my finger on it. I think the fact that this story made us think was a positive thing. So many books allow for very little room for opposing viewpoints, and I find that quite frustrating. Towards the beginning of the book, I thought this story was like that; the narrator’s constant thoughts and explanations  left me leaning towards his viewpoint, but now that has changed. The introduction of Phaedrus and the opposing viewpoints of those around him have left me able to think on my own. The topics discussed in the book are interesting, so the ability to dwell on certain ideas is oddly refreshing; it serves as a contrast to hearing the narrator’s seemingly endless thoughts.

“…the bottom of that ocean out there…” (Zane Mandell)

I can honestly say that I really didn’t see the ending coming. I definitely should have given all the time one has to think during the boring Chautauquas. It is true that while the narrator has time to reflect on the thoughts and ideas of Phaedrus that the reader will trail off on their own and think or their past thoughts and idea. We reflect. We are always reflecting in some way or another. We are trying to find ourselves, trying to find that which cannot be defined but makes us the way that we are. You don’t really know what it is, but “You can sort of tell these things” (531).

Phaedrus and the narrator are one. The duality of this is present all along, interwoven into the Chautauquas on quality, the Greeks, stuckness, and more. But quality, that which the narrator and his past self, Phaedrus, are seeking is always there, right in front of them it is just one of those things that you know, you can sense it, you can feel it, but it is indescribable. The indescribable is approached time and again throughout the journey that the narrator takes, trying to find himself. But he is unable to accept it for so long until he sees it in the eyes of his son. Chris shows him the light for everything that he has thought about throughout the novel. The time he spends thinking has allowed Chris stew until the whole issue boils to a head and then reveals itself. It is the narrator focus on what he is looking for that creates the situation where he is able to find that which he is looking for, and it is right beside him the whole time. It is this underlying apparentness that strikes me as a reader at the end. The question then becomes not of how the narrator could not have seen it all along, but how I could not have seen it all along.

How deep is to the bottom of the ocean out there? That is the question we all ask ourselves, trying to find that which cannot be found. It doesn’t matter how deep the ocean is or whether there is a distinguishable depth at all. All that matters is that some things are how they are and we must simply accept it. The bottom is somewhere, even if I can never see or know of it. You just have to, in the words of Chris, “let it be” (522).

End

Well, it is finally over, and I must admit I am at a loss for words. It has truly been a rush reading this novel, and though I have ingested far more philosophical topics than I can stomach within these past few days, I cannot say it was for nothing. It is difficult to read a book you do not enjoy, and I do suppose I will enjoy it more when I read it for a second time (many, many, many years from now), but for the sake of the assignment, I will try my best to convey my emotions.

I must confess I re-read the book from the beginning to the end in one sitting, and this is because I would rather understand any work of art as a whole instead of weekly fragments- it just helps me tie it all together, and I remember key elements from earlier parts of the book more easily that way. I do not regret it, either, because I noticed that I had overlooked a great deal of information from the first half of the novel. For example, I was still confused by the identity of Phaedrus even after beginning Part 3, but when I reread it, I felt pretty stupid to have completely passed over the explanation at the end of Part 1, with the electrodes and whatnot. Everything made sense afterwards, and I felt more appreciation for the narrator. He went from sounding like a pretentious know-it-all to someone I had great sympathy for, if not, some pity, too.

I became less interested in the plot, since the mystery had been solved, and more interested in the philosophy, which is not something I usually do. I also found it funny that I went from believing everything the narrator touched upon was common sense that I had already contemplated to having completely different ideas and learning new things. I should be less stubborn.

Philosophy is not a field that I sit with easily. It makes me uncomfortable to think deeply, but it makes me even more uncomfortable when I do not; once the spark is lit, putting a blanket over it will only cause it to catch fire and rage on. So, with this, I must also admit that the anxiety I felt while reading was pretty bad, and you’re lucky I didn’t fall into psychological turmoil like the narrator did (especially whilst studying Dostoyevsky and Kafka and all that good stuff…). But I digress.

The novel as a whole was fantastic, considering its genre. It is not entirely a manual, nor is it entirely a novel- it is a lovely mixture of the two. The change in font towards the end still leaves me a bit rattled. It’s ominous. Especially when you realize, the majority of this is autobiographical. 

Getting "Unstuck"

I found the chapter 24 very interesting in the idea of stuckness, and I will implement the techniques discussed to try and write this without spending 30 minutes looking at the screen before hand. The idea is to focus on one idea at a time, what ever it is you would like to put down on paper, and allowing that to take you where you need to go. The primary issue that causes stuckness is the mentality that there is much to do, it is overwhelming. When you look at a task as a whole it can seem intimidating, nearly impossible to do. The solution discussed in the novel is simply picking one action, whatever it may be, that will help you finish this task and focus on it. While focusing on it you leave your mind open to inspiration on what you must do next and once that inspiration hits, you can move on to the rest of the task. It is expressed in the example of the screw, in which one is unable to fix the bike until they stop focusing on the bike and allow themselves to focus on other things. This is once again expressed with Chris when he cannot seem to figure out what to write to his mother. The method to fix this was simply to write down a list of all that he wanted to write, then decide the order to write it in. This is a method I could see begin extremely helpful in my writing. What seems to be a constant struggle I have in writing essays is that halfway through writing my essay I am often times hit with a realization that make complete and utter sense, and perfectly proves my point, however by that point it is too late and I am to far into the essay to integrate it into the essay. The reason that I get these realizations halfway through the essay is because that is the point where I had become "unstuck". Halfway through and essay I reach a point where I am finally comfortable in what I am writing and the worry of what to write has left me. Because that worry, which is the ultimate cause of the stuckness I feel when beginning an essay, is gone my mind is open to inspiration, which frustratingly comes when I least need it.

Stuck (Zane Mandell)

What does it mean to be stuck? It means that you are looking at everything all wrong. The fact is you aren’t stuck; it is just that you have found something that makes you want to stop. It is that thing which you need to overcome whether it is external or internal. The narrator himself is stuck, but we shall get to that letter.

I feel it was a good thing that this reading that we chose was rather lengthy because it fit in well with understanding the topic that the narrator chooses to discuss. You must reevaluate where you are, in that reevaluation learn why you are doing what you are doing. The answer to why you are doing something is always the same, and that is ‘care’. That is the key by which you act, and its relationship with Quality is what makes ‘care’ what it is. I find this to be very interesting as the philosophic tidbit makes perfect sense, unlike plenty of the gibberish that has been previously discussed. Why do we act? Because we want to? Because we choose to? Because we are told to? All of these are encompassed by ‘care’ and the need or want for a betterment of Quality. It may not be that we care about what we do, but care about what may come as a result of it, or what may not come as a result of it. It is in fact the very reason that I am writing right now, if I did not care I would not choose to write this with Quality.

Like the narrator tends to do very often I am rambling. But I think this is important to look at deeper into himself. This brings me to a thought he has on the surface and innards of a machine. It is the surface that we must be very careful when working on, and once we get to the innards it is much easier to bang away to make the ‘machine’ work. When I read this I could not help but think about psychological studies where a doctor asks simple questions that don’t mean much on the surface but get at what is going on deeper down within the person. That is what we need to look at, as the “nightmares” about Phaedrus have continued we now know what is deeply troubling our narrator. Why he has chosen to write all this down is what I would like to get at. This, I believe, will act as a door within in to see the roots, just like those within Quality that he has been searching for the entire novel. The final portion of our reading should therefore be very revealing.

Loneliness

In this week’s reading, the narrator touches on the subject of loneliness. He claims that the most heavily populated cities on the east and west coasts are actually home to the loneliest people. It is paradoxical that the Midwest, which has far less concentrated cities, is where the less lonely reside. I think this shows that appearances and expectations are not always what they appear to be. The narrator goes on to explain that technology is largely at fault for the loneliness of citizens who live in “big coastal cities” (321). In larger cities, people are more exposed to technology, which in turn detaches them from the natural world. Urbanization heavily detracts from an individual’s touch with nature. In contrast, those in the Midwest are less exposed to urbanization, so they are more in touch with the natural world.

Technology is to blame for this type of loneliness because of the isolation that results from it. Being in Miami, we are all constantly being exposed to technology in such large amounts, to a point where it is taking over our lives. Of course, there are many benefits to technology, but there are consequences that result from it. As we are progressing into a more and more technologically-based world, our dependence on technology is growing. As can be seen today, most people are glued to their cell phones and computers, so conversation and personal interaction is limited in the presence of technology. I think this is the type of isolation that the narrator is referring to.

The narrator also speaks briefly about decision-making and its connection to Quality. I still find the topic of Quality to be a bit confusing, but the narrator’s explanations have slightly helped me in understanding his ideas. As he mentions, technology can be used to maintain friends. Using himself as an example, the narrator explains that “a person who knows how to fix motorcycles – with Quality – is less likely to run short of friends than one who doesn't” (322). When an individual becomes interested in what he or she does, then that person will become more interesting. His Quality decision, which is his good decision that is thoroughly thought out, will prove beneficial, as his friends will not view him as an object, but rather as an individual with interesting and worthwhile substance. 

Do I finally understand who Phaedrus is?

            These chapters helped me reach a sort of understanding on Phaedrus, which I never thought was possible. This I think was revealed by the plan of sending Chris home on a bus and checking into a hospital. He believes that he is mentally ill. Phaedrus could be him, but a different side of him, somewhat of a different personality. This could make sense. He left it behind and now he is a completely different person. This explains why Robert Deweese thought he had changed so much. He technically is not the same person. I may be misinterpreting the entire novel, now that I have this idea in my head, but it can somewhat make sense. This makes the entire novel easier to understand. With only a few chapters left, I think I may have figured it out.

            Something else I found interesting in these chapters was the letter that Chris was writing to his mother. Why is this the first time she has been mentioned for a significant purpose? I feel like there must be an underlying meaning to this. I also find it interesting that he cannot find anything to write about, and has to brainstorm. He is talking to his own mother! I always have something to talk about with her, shouldn’t he? It is not like he is very close to his father. This makes me feel that he is lonely. This leads the narrator into a conversation about technology. It was once considered art, or so the narrator says. Then it advanced and people who no longer cared created the modern technology. Now he considers it to be ugly. This relates to modern technology in the way that everything becomes more technological. No one needs to talk to communicate; everything is “easier”. Just imagining modern technology actively used in the novel would make the situation between the narrator and Chris worse. They would literally have nothing to talk about, enjoy together, etc. They already have a hard time connecting, and technology is making it worse now a days. I think this is interesting that it came up in the book because everyone makes it such a big deal. The older generations hate that we are so dependent on our phones and computers, but we would not be able to live in the modern world without these devices. The are beneficial in some ways, but harmful in others.

            

The Ugliness of Technology

                In these last few chapters, the narrator talks about the ugliness of technology, and how different people react differently to it. He says that “technology is simply the making of things and the making of things can’t by its own nature be ugly or there would be no possibility for beauty in the arts, which also include the making of things” (260). A person’s individual situation is what interprets how he or she will react to technology. He uses the example of a prison inmate who sees the stone walls of the jail in order to expand on the idea of an individual’s situation influencing his or her reaction. The inmate would probably not react well to technology that encompasses the use of stone, as this particular individual has been exposed to the material under a bad circumstance. To compare this negative experience to a more positive one, the narrator uses Phaedrus as an example. He says that Phaedrus saw a beautiful wall in Korea, which influenced his opinion regarding certain materials. Each individual has a different perspective, so, naturally, everyone will react in different ways to, in this case, technology.

Since there are so many components that make up technology, no one can isolate the specific attribute that makes technology “ugly”. The narrator argues that instead of avoiding technology, one should try to break down the barriers that affect the understanding of what technology truly is. Once this happens, the human spirit can successfully fuse with nature. I have to agree with the narrator’s ideas. It makes complete sense that no one can avoid technology; it is definitely omnipresent. There is no denying the fact that technology has made some definite advances in society, both for the better and the worse. Due to the varying results of scientific advances in technology, it makes sense that people would have different opinions. I completely agree with the narrator’s viewpoint on this topic. In my case, I have not really experienced anything horrible that would taint my approval of technology. That being said, I embrace technology, much like the narrator himself. If I had had a bad experience, even just regarding a material, I do feel that my opinion may differ. Everything we see and experience affects the way that we think, to such an extent that we base our opinions off of it. The way that we live our lives greatly impacts our viewpoints on all topics. 

Order

In this weeks reading the author managed to make absolute sense and absolutely no sense at that the same time. As he discussed with idea of “subliminal self” I will discuss the parts of the reading that are convenient to me and my understanding of the novel. His discussion of facts at first confused me to no end, as it seemed to confuse those who discovered the internal contradictions between scientific and mathematical laws that are meant to be absolute truths. It begins with the idea that one main truth leads to the discovery of multiple smaller, more specifics truths. This truth is referred to as a simple fact. These simple facts though vague, are the most important because they serve as the foundation for the other facts to be built upon. When one of these facts is proved to be wrong, or at least potentially wrong is disrupts all of the other facts connecting to it, potentially destroying the system. What seems to be the catch is that this fact is all true and untrue at the same time. In the creation of the facts we “discover them” out of a need for them, we subconsciously pick them. However these facts are simply definitions that humans have created to find some sort of order in the world, one that can ground us when the ever-powerful wind gust of philosophy threatens to throw us up in the air. It is the search for beauty, the classic beauty that Poincaré finds such power in. This beauty is essentially that grounding in the idea of absolute truth. The idea that there is a “harmonious order” of laws that govern the universe and keep it consistent. Without this beauty I feeling of unease threatens that psyche as we are forced to acknowledge a complete lack of control, understanding, and knowledge of what is to come. It may be that all known science is just mankind’s attempt at comforting ourselves in our uncontrollable lives. If math and science can be proven wrong then order does not exist.

Harmony (Zane Mandell)

Reading this novel is becoming more and more like wading through the thickest muck in a swamp. The narrator is going so deep into his thoughts that it is nearly impossible for the reader to follow. There are certain points where I am able to see a culmination of various thoughts and discussions but it is very challenging to follow the mindset and though process of the narrator. It is obvious that he has direction and has laid a solid foundation; I am just having trouble identifying what that is.

Having said this I was able to clearly see this major turning point in the Chautauquas dealing with Phaedrus. His study into quality found that he was looking at it all wrong. Quality is a completely separate entity, a third part of the puzzle. It couldn’t fall under the romantic mindset nor could it be placed under the classical one. So he came to conclusion that it is the midpoint by which the two are connected, it is definitely something that is there it just cannot be defined. Not only can it not be defined but Phaedrus comes to the conclusion that any attempt to defined quality undermines the whole system and renders everything invalid.

This is verbose and complex material that the narrator is trying to get at. But it seems as the narrator escapes momentarily from a Chautauqua that he is dealing with something, a problem that is rooted so deep, the narrator is not even sure whether there is a problem. This most prominently emerges in the dream that takes place in Chapter 23. It brings up different topics such as death, family, and love. We now know that the narrator is afraid, he admits to it too. He owns the idea that he has fear, while recognizing that Phaedrus and his son never show it. This brings up many pressing questions that need to be answered. But at the moment there is one that strikes me as being of the utmost importance. Why is the narrator trying to relive the past? As we have previously discussed it is obvious that he is trying to recollect the thoughts and teachings of his previous self, who he refers to as Phaedrus. But that doesn’t answer my question. What I am trying to get at is why he has chosen to go where Phaedrus lived and try to take in all of that which occurred in the past. At this moment I believe that he is seeking harmony, but not within himself. He is trying to reach peace with all of those around him, by keeping his son closest. The next step that he needs to make is realizing there is a problem within himself. Hopefully this dream will allow him to wake up.

Father and son

            These chapters really emphasized the relationship Chris and the narrator seem to have. I find it very sad, but they are not the only people who have the sort of relationship. There are many parents that do not understand their children and cannot connect to him. The first dream the narrator has is significant because it shows he is becoming aware of how distant they truly are. There is a glass door between them. He does nothing to try to open it and communicate. That is how he is acting throughout his lifetime. He says he will meet Chris on the mountaintop, where they never end up going, and the narrator speaks of symbols that represent the loss of control in their relationship. They are his fault though, and there is no one else to blame. They both need to make an effort in having a father-son relationship. But the narrator seems to always disappoint his son. It is so sad. Then they somewhat connect, and Chris begins to be burdened by the same load as his father. But Chris has this sense of competitiveness. With his own father! I do not understand what reason there is to be competitive. In whose eyes, other than in theirs, do they need to compete? This occurs as they descend from the mountain. Then the second dream caught me off guard. The same glass door was present, but the narrator was in a coffin. His family was paying their respects and he felt grateful for this. I honestly have always thought it was a given that one’s family would go and pay their respects. The narrator really wants to communicate with his son. He finds this difficult, especially due to the shadow figure, and decides to try anyways. This gave me hope in their relationship because he tried to fix it in his dream.

            Apart from the emphasis on their relationship, there is Zen, scenery, and philosophy mixed in. These are the parts of the story that I get confused. I no longer want to be confused. I want to have clarity on what is happening and understand the philosophy and thoughts behind it. I want to know more about Phaedrus. There are so many questions that I have. I want an explanation. I thought I understood the concept of Quality, but now he spoke of whether it was subjective or objective, and the fact that it is the force behind religion. How does this all correlate?