4 ms·

He studied at a Hindu University, so that makes sense. Yeah, there is a lot that you’re saying that’s a perfectly valid objection to my oversimplification, and

by thrav 7y ago

He studied at a Hindu University, so that makes sense. Yeah, there is a lot that you’re saying that’s a perfectly valid objection to my oversimplification, and maybe to his whole thing, but I’ll be the first to admit that it’s easy to take it apart the way I’ve relayed it. I put plenty of words in his mouth in my previous comment. As mentioned, he spent 15 years writing the book because he wanted it to say it the right way. There was a whole forum after it came out where a bunch of philosophy students would argue about his theories and what he meant and what that means and what falls into which category, and every once in a while he would pop in and say, “I see what you’re thinking, but no, that’s not what I meant at all, it’s actually this.” I’d love to hear your thoughts on his own words though. You obviously know far more than I do about Philosophy. Wikipedia of Metaphysics of Quality is probably a better cliff notes than me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_Metaphysics_of_Quality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_Metaphysics_of_Qu...

sideshowb 7y ago
You sell yourself short - I didn't see anything on the wiki page that enlightened me more than your summary did. Maybe I should track down that forum, but I suspect the experience would be akin to more than one experience I've had chatting with philosophers (one of which I am not, though I guess I've been exposed to a bit through one channel or another) where I try to draw something useful out of the discussion only to be told this isn't what it's about. "It's brave of you to try and summarize" were the words of one colleague giving a seminar at the time! Maybe I just don't get it, or maybe it's they who don't get it, but it seems beyond me to figure out which. Maybe this is where I get a bit middle aged and intolerant and decide that further effort on that part isn't a good use of my time, and if a philosophy isn't useful for something (including the valid use of just being an aesthetically pleasing thing to consider) then I don't have a lot of time for it. In terms of aesthetics you have helped me to see some more in ZAMM than before, though. On my first reading of ZAMM the real epiphany moment was where he described the workings of a motorcycle then said "... one thing classical types won't notice about this is that it's really, really, boring" or words to that effect. True. I identify strongly with the classical worldview but also with all the "groovy" phenomena on the other side of the divide which I think are perfectly explainable classically it's just that most people fail to do so. If you haven't come across Sheldrake before you may enjoy The New Science of Life. I may not endorse his conclusions but can heartily recommend his exploration of ideas.
- thrav 7y ago
  I would agree that I haven’t found Pirsig’s work to be the most life changing. It’s much more life affirming, and ‘hey, that’s what I’ve been thinking, but not quite putting my finger on!’ The same could be said for my recent dive into David Foster Wallace. Absolutely loving reading his writing, but more affirmation of my own thoughts than expansion. I also realize this is probably because I’m reading both decades after publication, which means time has caught up to their ahead of the curve ideas. The most I’ve gotten out of a book, in terms of altering the way I think about the world and life, is Simone De Beauvoir and the Ethics of Ambiguity. Man, I love me some Simone.

by thrav 7y ago

sideshowb 7y ago

You sell yourself short - I didn't see anything on the wiki page that enlightened me more than your summary did. Maybe I should track down that forum, but I suspect the experience would be akin to more than one experience I've had chatting with philosophers (one of which I am not, though I guess I've been exposed to a bit through one channel or another) where I try to draw something useful out of the discussion only to be told this isn't what it's about. "It's brave of you to try and summarize" were the words of one colleague giving a seminar at the time! Maybe I just don't get it, or maybe it's they who don't get it, but it seems beyond me to figure out which. Maybe this is where I get a bit middle aged and intolerant and decide that further effort on that part isn't a good use of my time, and if a philosophy isn't useful for something (including the valid use of just being an aesthetically pleasing thing to consider) then I don't have a lot of time for it. In terms of aesthetics you have helped me to see some more in ZAMM than before, though. On my first reading of ZAMM the real epiphany moment was where he described the workings of a motorcycle then said "... one thing classical types won't notice about this is that it's really, really, boring" or words to that effect. True. I identify strongly with the classical worldview but also with all the "groovy" phenomena on the other side of the divide which I think are perfectly explainable classically it's just that most people fail to do so. If you haven't come across Sheldrake before you may enjoy The New Science of Life. I may not endorse his conclusions but can heartily recommend his exploration of ideas.

thrav 7y ago
I would agree that I haven’t found Pirsig’s work to be the most life changing. It’s much more life affirming, and ‘hey, that’s what I’ve been thinking, but not quite putting my finger on!’ The same could be said for my recent dive into David Foster Wallace. Absolutely loving reading his writing, but more affirmation of my own thoughts than expansion. I also realize this is probably because I’m reading both decades after publication, which means time has caught up to their ahead of the curve ideas. The most I’ve gotten out of a book, in terms of altering the way I think about the world and life, is Simone De Beauvoir and the Ethics of Ambiguity. Man, I love me some Simone.