Zen and the Art of Recognizing Life's Continuum

Phaedrus and Pirsig-N. exhibit very strongly something that I despise about philosophers: they think of themselves as being above, outside of the human condition.

Pirsig-N., blinded by arrogance, intelligence or insanity (or perhaps all three) often neglects the human element in life. I’m assuming that this is a problem that extends to the real Pirsig, as he notes several times that the narrative story, the story of the people, is fairly arbitrary and far less important than the Chautauqua itself.

The other aspect of Zen that I found profoundly irritating was Phaedrus’ knife; I don’t believe that life can be split into binaries, that our world is rather painted with many shades of grey. And yet every time Phaedrus came to the culmination of thought, every time he arrived at a revelatory idea, he immediately took out his damn knife and chopped it to pieces. Phaedrus and Pirsig-N seem somewhat convinced that for the most part, a rift exists between classic and romantic, hip and square, technologic and humanistic; but while reading, I could think of countless examples of aspects of life that do not fall on one side or the other. Even the comparison of Reason and Quality irked me; can there not be Quality reason? Isn’t reason essential when determining the Quality of an object or idea?

I wish that Pirsig would have addressed the concept of empathy more; I feel as if many of these concepts—especially the reconciliation of good versus reasonable—hinge on empathy. Empathy also, in my opinion, plays a monumental role in rhetoric; it helps us to resolve our different worldviews, effectively communicate our perspectives and portray to others how the world looks through our lens.

Essentially, rhetoric, this multifarious communication between all members of the human race, helps determine good and evil.

Life is a continuum, not two parts of a whole. There is not a giant rift in the plane of existence. Ways of thinking may fall on a spectrum, but I resist creating a binary for everything.

Pirsig also fails to notice that some aspects of life are catalyzed by neither Reason nor Quality: emotions. Love, sadness, anger, jealousy, nostalgia, ect. cannot be carved up by Phaedrus’s knife.

Pirsig seems to contradict himself often. I was never quite sure if he was creating these binaries, or simply stating that humans create them. He seems to think that these binaries have some sort of utility, but he also at times rejects them for not acknowledging the other.

What Pirsig does do very well at, however, is get me thinking. He definitely set the stage for these coming philosophical readings, which I will be diving headlong into today.