4 ms·

For me, it was reading “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” — one small part of it especially. Long before Pirsig begins asking fundamental questions li

For me, it was reading “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” — one small part of it especially. Long before Pirsig begins asking fundamental questions like, “What can we know?”, and “What is the meaning of Quality?”, he mentions the seed of his destruction — his realization when studying biochemistry that there were an infinite number of possible theories that he could propose to explain any observation, and that there was no way he could ever know which theory was right, nor would he live long enough to soundly validate any hypothesis he might invent of his own. Pirsig's ensuing battle with subjective thinking and eventual mental decline as he lost faith that objectivity was fruitful as a way of life, much less realizable... This was my first glimpse into the futility of pursuing a life dedicated to exploring objective reality, i.e. science. In the 30 years since, I can only confirm that epiphany — there is far more to be gained by telling people what they want to hear and by self promotion than in persisting with reality. Storytellers are far more beloved than are sticklers for the truth.

surprisetalk 9y ago
I completely agree that the pursuit of Truth is a fool's errand. And I'm a fool. Storytelling and reality aren't mutually exclusive. Consider great minds like Clifford Stoll, Alan Kay, Raymond Smullyan, Douglas Hofstadter -- we can't be sure that what they say is True, but their stories are compelling, and their wisdom seems sound enough. Humans are analogy-engines. For us, myths are the best way to transfer information. And even if the information isn't Truth, it's probably good enough. And "good enough" will likely improve the lives of your children and grandchildren. Of course you can't know everything! There's endless territory to explore. But there's no harm in exploring the incredibly small world around you. And there's even less harm in finding ways to reduce suffering for others, if you're into that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you in theory. But in practice, worrying about whether things are technically True obstructs the way of finding things that seem to work. And many of us deeply enjoy discovering things that "seem to work", and then telling great stories about them. Exploring reality can be a lot of fun, if you don't take reality so seriously.
sjg007 9y ago
Except that the story tellers would've died without the discovery of penicillin, vaccines, etc.. Maybe even from a lack of hand washing! There are an infinite number of theories sure, only those that are testable are worth consideration and of the testable ones you find one that is correct at the current level of resolution and move forward.
yesenadam 9y ago
So you gave up science and searching for truth, for manipulating people/lying to them (I guess by "telling people what they want to hear" you don't mean the truth) and self-promotion? Sigh. More to be gained? What's more important in life, what you give or what you get? We make a living by what we get, but a life by what we give. Sounds like some kind of category mistake, or a few. Science isn't as totally impossible as you make out. Evidently. It sounds a little like the crises ex-christians have about the world, dizzying and demoralizing themselves with similar grandiose dramatics. (existentialists, Bergman etc) That biochemistry crisis sounds like a Zeno's paradox, stultifying oneself with the abyss of the infinite. "There was no way he could ever know which theory was right" - isn't that absurd exaggeration? But sure, I guess you mean, you realized a life of science wouldn't perhaps be a wonderful bountiful one, but a hard, thankless one, maybe ending in total failure. But why blame science or philosophy if science doesn't guarantee you a pleasant life? Or to be beloved. Well, maybe it's only for the cantankerous few, those mountain goats crazy enough to love the solitary labour (in science, philosophy, mathematics etc) for its own sake. And it's good to realize such a life wasn't for you. In the sequel Lila (although not sure if recommending Pirsig to people is a good idea) there's a lot against academic anthropology, but even more presenting what he evidently sees as objectively how the world works, (societies, cultures, people) what could be called sociology I guess. And it's very interesting and insightful stuff. Ok sorry about that ramble. To this day, my whole philosophy totters after an hour’s sympathetic conversation with total strangers: it seems so foolish to me to wish to be right at the price of love, and not be able to communicate what one considers most valuable lest one destroy the sympathy. – Nietzsche, letter to Gast, 1880
multiple_bears 9y ago
“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” I agree objectivity is difficult if nigh impossible to achieve. But I'd argue ~80% of the way there is good enough to leave an impact- take your pick of discoveries across the sciences.
rayalez 9y ago
This is a silly false dichotomy that many of "zen" teachings keep repeating. "I want to know the perfect complete truth + human beings can not know perfect complete truth = therefore truth is unknowable and we should give up trying." This is dumb. Just because you don't get to be perfect, doesn't mean it's pointless to try to do better. We are all flawed, but we are less flawed than we were 2000 years ago, and that kind of progress is worth striving for, even if we'll never know the ultimate truth. Also striving to be better and knowing as much of "the truth" as possible is valuable for it's own sake, "gaining stuff" and being "beloved" is not what makes truth worth pursuing.
- babygoat 9y ago
  "We should give up trying" is a straw man - this book is not a teaching nor does Pirsig come from the Zen tradition. And you've completely missed the point with respect to objectivity.
oceanghost 9y ago
You're schizotypal or schizoaffective. I am too. We all either come to this conclusion eventually, or go mad.

surprisetalk 9y ago

I completely agree that the pursuit of Truth is a fool's errand. And I'm a fool. Storytelling and reality aren't mutually exclusive. Consider great minds like Clifford Stoll, Alan Kay, Raymond Smullyan, Douglas Hofstadter -- we can't be sure that what they say is True, but their stories are compelling, and their wisdom seems sound enough. Humans are analogy-engines. For us, myths are the best way to transfer information. And even if the information isn't Truth, it's probably good enough. And "good enough" will likely improve the lives of your children and grandchildren. Of course you can't know everything! There's endless territory to explore. But there's no harm in exploring the incredibly small world around you. And there's even less harm in finding ways to reduce suffering for others, if you're into that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you in theory. But in practice, worrying about whether things are technically True obstructs the way of finding things that seem to work. And many of us deeply enjoy discovering things that "seem to work", and then telling great stories about them. Exploring reality can be a lot of fun, if you don't take reality so seriously.

sjg007 9y ago

Except that the story tellers would've died without the discovery of penicillin, vaccines, etc.. Maybe even from a lack of hand washing! There are an infinite number of theories sure, only those that are testable are worth consideration and of the testable ones you find one that is correct at the current level of resolution and move forward.

yesenadam 9y ago

So you gave up science and searching for truth, for manipulating people/lying to them (I guess by "telling people what they want to hear" you don't mean the truth) and self-promotion? Sigh. More to be gained? What's more important in life, what you give or what you get? We make a living by what we get, but a life by what we give. Sounds like some kind of category mistake, or a few. Science isn't as totally impossible as you make out. Evidently. It sounds a little like the crises ex-christians have about the world, dizzying and demoralizing themselves with similar grandiose dramatics. (existentialists, Bergman etc) That biochemistry crisis sounds like a Zeno's paradox, stultifying oneself with the abyss of the infinite. "There was no way he could ever know which theory was right" - isn't that absurd exaggeration? But sure, I guess you mean, you realized a life of science wouldn't perhaps be a wonderful bountiful one, but a hard, thankless one, maybe ending in total failure. But why blame science or philosophy if science doesn't guarantee you a pleasant life? Or to be beloved. Well, maybe it's only for the cantankerous few, those mountain goats crazy enough to love the solitary labour (in science, philosophy, mathematics etc) for its own sake. And it's good to realize such a life wasn't for you. In the sequel Lila (although not sure if recommending Pirsig to people is a good idea) there's a lot against academic anthropology, but even more presenting what he evidently sees as objectively how the world works, (societies, cultures, people) what could be called sociology I guess. And it's very interesting and insightful stuff. Ok sorry about that ramble. To this day, my whole philosophy totters after an hour’s sympathetic conversation with total strangers: it seems so foolish to me to wish to be right at the price of love, and not be able to communicate what one considers most valuable lest one destroy the sympathy. – Nietzsche, letter to Gast, 1880

multiple_bears 9y ago

“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” I agree objectivity is difficult if nigh impossible to achieve. But I'd argue ~80% of the way there is good enough to leave an impact- take your pick of discoveries across the sciences.

rayalez 9y ago

This is a silly false dichotomy that many of "zen" teachings keep repeating. "I want to know the perfect complete truth + human beings can not know perfect complete truth = therefore truth is unknowable and we should give up trying." This is dumb. Just because you don't get to be perfect, doesn't mean it's pointless to try to do better. We are all flawed, but we are less flawed than we were 2000 years ago, and that kind of progress is worth striving for, even if we'll never know the ultimate truth. Also striving to be better and knowing as much of "the truth" as possible is valuable for it's own sake, "gaining stuff" and being "beloved" is not what makes truth worth pursuing.

babygoat 9y ago
"We should give up trying" is a straw man - this book is not a teaching nor does Pirsig come from the Zen tradition. And you've completely missed the point with respect to objectivity.

oceanghost 9y ago

You're schizotypal or schizoaffective. I am too. We all either come to this conclusion eventually, or go mad.