Comment on Melanie's Post (Monica)

I must first start by saying that I did in fact find it humorous that Melanie "pulled a Pirsig" the other day. I agree with Melanie in her concept on becoming a creator. People become better writers by reading the works of other and using similar syntax or diction. People become better artists by learning techniques from teachers and copying them. It is the way that learning works. The issue with this type of learning is that it leads to the products of the student's work to be, as Melanie eloquently put it, bullsh*t. The reading expresses this issue with learning and then uses it to express Phaedrus as a competent and victorious teacher, which i must admit I a have a slight feeling was the whole point of the Philosophical discussion. I also agree with Melanie in her discussion about grades and the extrinsic motivation that they provide. It would only seem right that intrinsic (internal) motivation would be the best motivation for a student to do well, however it bothered me the Phaedrus had a disapproval for grades but did not give up a plausible way to motivate the students any other way. Though it would be nice to believe that students could motivate themselves, I do not really think that can ever be an option for all of the students, and it seems to me that Phaedrus was complaining about something that had no real fix. 

Response to Monica’s

First off I am sorry that you have been so bothered by this book, because at its root it is really interesting. But in the same way I understand that your problem is that this is too complex, one that I agree is true. Having said that since we are required to finish the novel I hope that you will see what the author is getting at here because it is truly an interesting piece of literature.

I most now move on to the main point of your post that at this point I think is a non-issue. The narrator is this Phaedrus that he constantly refers to in the third person. The reason that he is doing is obviously not seen yet but we have now learned that it was traumatic and my inkling is that it had something to do with this ‘quality’ issue that I discussed in my own post. The narrator obviously has been there before; he is not visiting a place that someone else used to work. When he says that he is the ghost and that Phaedrus is now real it could not be more obvious. Sure the issue has yet to been dealt with directly and explicitly, but isn’t it obvious to you, like it is to me. Maybe not, and now that I think about it is strange that Pirsig has explained everything explicitly except for this, in great detail as well. Irony seems to flow throughout this novel as we discuss it further and further.

Comment on Zane's Post (Priya Dhairyawan)

I agree that Robert Pirsig has done an excellent job of getting into the mind of the narrator, but, personally, I do not feel that I know the narrator more than he knows himself. The narrator is always so deep in thought that I find it hard to believe that I would know him better than he knows himself. Despite my fluctuating interest in the story, the sense of mystery is one of the few things that is keeping me somewhat interested in the book. I also agree that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with the narrator's thoughts. His ideas are extremely philosophical and he goes into so much detail that it becomes difficult to understand everything that he is saying.

Phaedrus (Monica Rodriguez)

This novel continues to bother me with it’s ambiguity. It constantly deals with vague yet complex philosophical concepts that have honestly begun to bother me with their complicated explanations of the obvious. The narrators detachment has also bothered me because at times I feel as though he thinks he is better then John and Sylvia. However, what bothers me the most is that I simply cannot figure out what the relationship between Phaedrus and the narrator is. Is Phaedrus the narrator in a past life? Is he an author that the narrator has read constantly? Or is he simply someone that the narrator made up? (which though the idea is a bit far out there I find possibly due to the narrators “eccentric” thought process). In this week’s reading we were once again introduced to another facet of Phaedrus’s, his work a teacher. The narrator discuses how Phaedrus had a bit of trouble understanding his students, which is not surprising given how those of higher intelligence seem to have issues understanding others. What I found interesting about this glimpse into the past was not the philosophical concepts that the narrator delved into, because frankly I have been exposed to enough philosophical concepts to last me a lifetime in reading this book, but it was the way in which the narrator told the story. He told it in third person yet it seemed like it was his story that he was telling. This has been the case with all of the stories that the narrator has told about Phaedrus. It is the way that he knows so many specifics about Phaedrus that I find suspicious. This in addition to his need to rekindle a friendship with the man who was Phaedrus’s good friend has me suspecting that the answer to my first question, if Phadrus is the narrator in a past life, may be yes, however I am not yet completely convinced.

Comment on Shannon's Post

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly, Shannon. I am still incredibly confused by the plotline of the story itself, and for that reason I decided to focus on the philosophy rather than the actual content for a change, because I too was frustrated by the ambiguity and unanswered questions that just continue to pile up onto one another until we are left with a mountain of doubt. I do find it interesting that you pointed out Sylvia’s own feelings being especially prominent in this week’s reading because I did not think much of it. Sylvia is concerned as if she were Chris’s mother, which I find important considering we have no idea where Chris’s mother is in the first place, and somewhat expresses this concern but, as you said, cannot do much about it because it is not her problem anyway. Also, I do agree that it was a little strange that Chris refused to enter the university, but is it because of something deep or supernatural, or is he just being defiant of his father? I doubt it to be for a supernatural cause because that would be incredibly hard to believe and the novel would lose its credibility. Hopefully this does not lead to something implausible, like aliens or destiny. 

Peace of Mind and its Implications (Zane Mandell)

            It is getting as complicated as ever but it seems we are entering a point where we shall learn more about our interesting narrator with a troubled past. Upon finish the second part of this novel I feel that I know that narrator better than he knows himself. I know what he is thinking, though not always how he is thinking about it, but I feel like Pirsig has done an excellent job getting into the mind of the narrator. The mind seems to come up as a big topic in this week’s reading along with being a major topic throughout the novel. It is obvious that the narrator went through something very traumatic but that thing is only starting to become available to the reader. It seems that the root of the issue is his understanding of the idea of ‘quality’ and how it can possibly be explained. The traumatic event is what has led the narration of the entire novel to attain this split between the old self which he refers to as Phaedrus and the new self which is who the reader follows. This sense of mystery in what has taken place before is the major driving force for me to continue this novel.

Moving off of that statement I do enjoy the philosophical debates on the state of mind and how it affects the perception on everything else. The narrator explains this idea that he has sat upon “for over 20 years” and goes into detail on the subject of peace of mind and the rotisserie. While there are points where I do get lost in his train of thought, just like DeWeese and company, I get the overall idea that everything begins with the mind and if you aren't willing to accept something there then there will always be a problem, you can’t forgo something forever.

The topic of the mind intrigues me and I how that it get more attention as the novel continues onward. But I feel like it needs to be said though it will be reiterated by other again and again – Pirsig gets lost in his Chautauqua’s way to often and I believe that it detracts from the book. I get that he has thought over these subject for a long time, and that he is trying to capture the thought process behind it all but it sometimes get a little out of hand. But this is now proven by John, Sylvia, DeWeese, and the other and it all continues. The fact that he is self-aware of this problem makes me cringe and I hope that there is some clarity that comes out of all of this, and it better be soon.

Comment on Priya's

I agree. I go through the same thing in a way, not full on depression like the narrator, but he needs to find a new purpose. He is kind of a depressing character. With his philosophical ideas, the confusion he produces, and the fact that he has not idea what is going on with anyone around him, especially his own son. I agree with you that sometimes the journey may be better than the destination, but I think mostly it is the destination that is worthwhile. But I see what you are saying; sometimes there is a sort of sadness after finishing a book or a movie. People become attached and need to find something else to fill the gap they just created. I do like how all of these ideas come together. The journey and destination debate lead into the depression of needing a temporary goal and also the fact that things need to be reorganized, with anew structure. Most of the ideas are intriguing, but the novel also provides so many of them and such confusion that we can not enjoy the novel. Hopefully it will get better.