Another explanation of the relationship between the narrator and Phaedrus was given by Pirsig in an interview with Tim Adams of the Observer in 2006.
RP: The depression continued right up until an editor took on the book. TA: The book was another strategy to get out of it all? RP: It was a compulsive thing. It started out as a little essay. I wanted to write about mortorcycling because I was having such fun doing it, and it grew organically from there. One thing people don't know is that the book was completed and ready to send in when I thought there were too many 'I's in the book. I need another character. So: Phaedrus. He did not appear until the book was written. TA: Also I guess you did not have a very stable sense of self. A clear sense of your 'I'. RP: It is horrible in Zen to use 'I'. There is no 'I' in enlightened Zen. And when you see someone using 'I,I,I' in their work you think: Oh, dear . . . As a rule when I write I try to find a way around it. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:03 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Krimel said to dmb:You make this extraordinarily lame point that the > narrator in ZMM is a literary devise. Perhaps but have you been reading > Strauss or something. Like the book is code and sometimes it means what it > says and sometimes it doesn't. Are we now to start looking for hidden > messages and determining that for more than half of ZMM Pirsig is talking > backward talk? > > dmb says:The explanation of the narrator as a literary device comes from > the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of ZAMM, which was written > by Pirsig. He corrects two errors there. One is that "Phaedrus" doesn't mean > "wolf". It means "brilliant" or "radiant". "The second error is much more > serious because it has obscured the fundamental meaning of the book." > > "The narrator is primarily a person dominated by social values. As he says > at the beginning, 'I haven't really had a new idea in years'. He never tells > the story except in ways that are calculated to make you like him. His > private thoughts he will share with you, but not with John or Sylvia or > Chris or the DeWeeses. Above all, he does not want to be isolated from you - > the reader- or from society around him. He maintains a careful position > within the normal boundaries of his surrounding society because he has see > what has happened to Phaedrus who did not. He has learned his lesson. No > more shock treatment for him. Only at one pint does the narrator confess his > secret: that he is a heretic who is congratulated by everyone for having > saved his soul but who knows secretly that all he has saved is his skin.In > Phaedrus's view the narrator is a sell out, a coward, who has abandoned > truth for popularity and social acceptance by his psychiatrists, his family, > his employers, and his social acquaintances. He sees that the narrator > doesn't want to be honest anymore, just an accepted member of the community, > bowing and accommodating his way through the rest of his years. Phaedrus was > dominated by intellectual values. He didn't give a danm who liked or didn't > like him. He was single-mindedly pursuing a truth he felt was of staggering > importance to the world..." > You call a "lame point". The author says this point has an important impact > on "the fundamental meaning of the book". Despite your haughty, mocking > tones, you could hardly be more mistaken. C'mon Krimel, if there's one thing > I know how to do it's locate textual evidence for the assertions I make. And > your condemnation of the so called "romantics" only has the effect of > underscoring your own squareness, your own inability to interpret Pirsig's > art as art. > > Krimel said:My point has always been that it is harder for romantics to get > with the program because their objections to classic thinking are aesthetic. > You, gav Platt and Marsha are great examples of this. Not only are your > objections to the classical view purely aesthetic, they make the use of > reason futile. > dmb says:Actually, Platt is a good example of what happens when the > narrator's cliched sentiments are mistaken for the truths of the MOQ. At > this point I'll remind you that the narrator was a classical thinker and an > Aristotelian while Phaedrus was the romantic, the Platonic Buddha seeker. As > you can see from Pirsig's explanation for the intro, the romantic character > is the intellectual. He's the one who wants to reform rationality itself, to > expand rationality beyond amoral scientific objectivity. He's not some > wishy-washy artsy-fartsy dreamer. He's such a hyper-intellectual that he > wants to perform a philosophical revolution on the whole meaning of truth > and intellect. Part of that reconstruction process involved an infusion of > feeling, affect, intuition or whatever you want to call it but to suggest > that this romantic perspective is "purely aesthetic" or that it makes "the > use of reason futile" only demonstrates your own fundamental > misunderstanding of the book. > > Krimel said: > For example you say this, "Human perception is reduced to transduced > energy. It's all about functioning parts." That is almost what I said and > almost my actual position but what is missing is critical. If you have been > paying attention you would notice that I have insisted all along that > "sensation" is transduction or encoding of physical energy into neural > impulses. Perception is the synthesis of the parallel process of sensation > and memory. Awareness and perception are properties that emerge from the > parallel processes that give rise to them. This is in fact what William > James claims. > > dmb says:Okay, you can consider the distinction between sensation and > perception to be fully acknowledged. Perception synthesizes the sensations > and so the latter is where energy transduction takes place. Now, if you > would, please explain how this is relevant to the charge of reductionism? > Are you STILL explaining human consciousness in terms of physiological > processes and the distinction between sensation and perception does not > alter that fact. Not eve a little bit. Regardless of the details, you are > explaining a highly complex non-physical phenomenon in terms of biological > structures and processes. That what reductionism means. It explains higher > complex things in terms of the lower, simpler things from which they > emerged. Objecting to this kind of reduction is not a denial that such > structures and processes exist and the anti-reductionistic does not claim > they are unworthy of study. It simply says that the higher more complex > realities are qualitatively different such that they cannot be properly > explained or understood in reductionist terms. It simply says that intellect > is NOT a feature of biology. Consciousness is more than what brains do or > what brains secrete, as you and your friend Searle put it. This is what the > levels of the MOQ are about, preventing reductionist explanations, > preventing the flatten of reality into one kind of thing; substance. > > Krimel said: > What exactly do you think "pre-intellectual" means? Is this a state you > think would be desirable? Would it be desirable to be in this state all the > time or is this a sort of conscious vacation spot where one drops in for the > occasional quickie? > > > dmb says: > I explained what "pre-intellectual" means earlier today in a post to John > that was also directed at you. As Pirsig says in connection with the hot > stove example, "the purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself > from experience but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, > confusing, static, intellectual attachments of the past". Do you think that > would be desirable, to bring yourself closer to experience? In the MOQ > experience is reality and the idea here is to bring yourself close to that, > which means your characterization of it as a "conscious vacation" is > approximately the opposite of what Pirsig is saying. > > > Sorry, but I think you're off. Way, way off. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. > http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
