April 30th, 2005 admin
On one of my usual stops at the Barnes and Noble coffee shop the girl across the counter saw Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, in my hand. As the steamer was getting ready, she asked if it were a good book. I smiled. “Yes, it is pretty good. Needs some stamina to get through it.”, I said. She said, “Yeah, I started to read it, but then, have never gotten back to finishing it”. I picked up my tall steamer a few moments later and as I searched for a place to sit and continue reading this book for the second time, I realized I had given her, firstly, partial information, which is pardonable, and secondly, lied.It is a good book. And it is a book about precisely that statement. What is good? I never told her that. And secondly, it is untrue that it takes a lot of stamina to get through. If anything, it gives a lot of stamina. It is a fascinating journey through the minds of a man, the author, and the person he once used to be. It is a taut and lively discussion about interesting questions. About what is quality? What is good? What makes it all tick? And at places the points the author makes are dazzling. I do not necessarily understand what he intended with this book, but I sure am happy to have read it and understood some of the points he made. This is an attempt to put down some of those points, often in his own words, to help me recollect some of the main lessons I learnt from this book, and also to let others get a glimpse of the book and thus be encouraged to read it. Snippets of the book are just that. Snippets. They can not do justice to the completeness, continuity or the overall message of the book. But some snippets are so stark and clear, that I feel they do a mighty good job just standing there on their own like stark, jagged monoliths of sparkling character rising up above the continuity of the blue waters.
Before I paste some of the snippets from the book here, let me tell you that this is not a book only about motorcycle maintenance. It attempts to use motorcycle maintenance as one of the activites humans might involve in. The book is primarily an attempt to understand quality, and that question pervades everything. Motorcycle maintenance is just a subject the author is comfortable with and uses for some examples and analogies.
Snippets from the book
The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower.
You can’t really think hard about what you’re doing and listen to the radio at the same time.
After a while he says, “Do you believe in ghosts?”
“No,” I say
“Why not?”
“Because they are un-sci-en-ti-fic.”
The way I say this makes John smile. “They contain no matter,” I continue, “and have no energy and therefore, according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people’s minds.”
The whiskey, the fatigue and the wind in the trees start mixing in my mind. “Of course,” I add, “the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people’s minds. It’s best to be completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe in either ghosts or the laws of science. That way you’re safe. That doesn’t leave you very much to believe in, but that’s scientific too.”
A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. It has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint or schematic or give the same description to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form.
What makes his world so hard to see clearly is not its strangeness but its usualness. Familiarity can blind you too.
There is a perennial classical question that asks which part of the motorcycle, which grain of sand in which pile, is the Buddha. Obviously to ask that question is to look in the wrong direction, for the Buddha is everywhere. But just as obviously to ask that question is to look in the right direction, for the Buddha is everywhere.
No one then would see the ghost that Phædrus pursued, but I think now that more and more people see it, or get glimpses of it in bad moments, a ghost which calls itself rationality but whose appearance is that of incoherence and meaninglessness, which causes the most normal of everyday acts to seem slightly mad because of their irrelevance to anything else. This is the ghost of normal everyday assumptions which declares that the ultimate purpose of life, which is to keep alive, is impossible, but that this is the ultimate purpose of life anyway, so that great minds struggle to cure diseases so that people may live longer, but only madmen ask why. One lives longer in order that he may live longer. There is no other purpose. That is what the ghost says.
Not everyone understands what a completely rational process this is, this maintenance of a motorcycle. They think it’s some kind of a “knack” or some kind of “affinity for machines” in operation. They are right, but the knack is almost purely a process of reason, and most of the troubles are caused by what old time radio men called a “short between the earphones,” failures to use the head properly. A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of rationality itself.
Precision instruments are designed to achieve an idea, dimensional precision, whose perfection is impossible. There is no perfectly shaped part of the motorcycle and never will be, but when you come as close as these instruments take you, remarkable things happen, and you go flying across the countryside under a power that would be called magic if it were not so completely rational in every way. It’s the understanding of this rational intellectual idea that’s fundamental. John looks at the motorcycle and he sees steel in various shapes and has negative feelings about these steel shapes and turns off the whole thing. I look at the shapes of the steel now and I see ideas. He thinks I’m working on parts.I ‘m working on concepts.
I’ve noticed that people who have never worked with steel have trouble seeing this…that the motorcycle is primarily a mental phenomenon. They associate metal with given shapes…pipes, rods, girders, tools, parts…all of them fixed and inviolable, and think of it as primarily physical. But a person who does machining or foundry work or forge work or welding sees “steel” as having no shape at all. Steel can be any shape you want if you are skilled enough, and any shape but the one you want if you are not. Shapes, like this tappet, are what you arrive at, what you give to the steel. Steel has no more shape than this old pile of dirt on the engine here. These shapes are all out of someone’s mind. That’s important to see. The steel? Hell, even the steel is out of someone’s mind. There’s no steel in nature. Anyone from the Bronze Age could have told you that. All nature has is a potential for steel. There’s nothing else there. But what’s “potential”? That’s also in someone’s mind! — Ghosts.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know.
If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge.
About this Einstein had said, “Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest,” and let it go at that. But to Phædrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase “at any given moment” really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!
He is sitting by a footpath on a beautiful windswept hillside overlooking the Yellow Sea. The rice in the terrace below the footpath is full-grown and brown. His friends look down at the sea with him seeing islands far out from shore. They eat a picnic lunch and talk to one another and to him and the subject is ideographs and their relation to the world. He comments on how amazing it is that everything in the universe can be described by the twenty-six written characters with which they have been working. His friends nod and smile and eat the food they’ve taken from tins and say no pleasantly.
The questions he had asked about infinite hypotheses hadn’t been of interest to science because they weren’t scientific questions. Science cannot study scientific method without getting into a bootstrap problem that destroys the validity of its answers. The questions he’d asked were at a higher level than science goes. And so Phædrus found in philosophy a natural continuation of the question that brought him to science in the first place, What does it all mean? What’s the purpose of all this?
Kant called his thesis that our a priori thoughts are independent of sense data and screen what we see a “Copernican revolution.” By this he referred to Copernicus’ statement that the earth moves around the sun. Nothing changed as a result of this revolution, and yet everything changed. Or, to put it in Kantian terms, the objective world producing our sense data did not change, but our a priori concept of it was turned inside out. The effect was overwhelming. It was the acceptance of the Copernican revolution that distinguishes modern man from his medieval predecessors.
It’s a problem of our time. The range of human knowledge today is so great that we’re all specialists and the distance between specializations has become so great that anyone who seeks to wander freely among them almost has to forego closeness with the people around him. The lunchtime here-and-now stuff is a specialty too.
In all of the Oriental religions great value is placed on the Sanskrit doctrine of Tat tvam asi, “Thou art that,” which asserts that everything you think you are and everything you think you perceive are undivided. To realize fully this lack of division is to become enlightened.
Logic presumes a separation of subject from object; therefore logic is not final wisdom. The illusion of separation of subject from object is best removed by the elimination of physical activity, mental activity and emotional activity. There are many disciplines for this. One of the most important is the Sanskrit dhyna, mispronounced in Chinese as “Chan” and again mispronounced in Japanese as “Zen.” Phædrus never got involved in meditation because it made no sense to him. In his entire time in India “sense” was always logical consistency and he couldn’t find any honest way to abandon this belief. That, I think, was creditable on his part.
The real University, he said, has no specific location. It owns no property, pays no salaries and receives no material dues. The real University is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has been brought down to us through the centuries and which does not exist at any specific location. It’s a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the centuries by a body of people who traditionally carry the title of professor, but even that title is not part of the real University. The real University is nothing less than the continuing body of reason itself.
Rotisserie assembly is actually a long-lost branch of sculpture, so divorced from its roots by centuries of intellectual wrong turns that just to associate the two sounds ludicrous.
We’re living in topsy-turvy times, and I think that what causes the topsy-turvy feeling is inadequacy of old forms of thought to deal with new experiences. I’ve heard it said that the only real learning results from hang-ups, where instead of expanding the branches of what you already know, you have to stop and drift laterally for a while until you come across something that allows you to expand the roots of what you already know. Everyone’s familiar with that. I think the same thing occurs with whole civilizations when expansion’s needed at the roots.
The trouble is that essays always have to sound like God talking for eternity, and that isn’t the way it ever is. People should see that it’s never anything other than just one person talking from one place in time and space and circumstance. It’s never been anything else, ever, but you can’t get that across in an essay.
Another thing that depressed him was prescriptive rhetoric, which supposedly had been done away with but was still around. This was the old slap-on-the-fingers- if-your-modifiers-were-caught-dangling stuff. Correct spelling, correct punctuation, correct grammar. Hundreds of rules for itsy-bitsy people. No one could remember all that stuff and concentrate on what he was trying to write about. It was all table manners, not derived from any sense of kindness or decency or humanity, but originally from an egotistic desire to look like gentlemen and ladies. Gentlemen and ladies had good table manners and spoke and wrote grammatically. It was what identified one with the upper classes.
In Montana, however, it didn’t have this effect at all. It identified one, instead, as a stuck-up Eastern ass.
Quality — you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better than others — but what’s the “betterness”? — So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?
“Heaven above” fades from meaning when space-age consciousness asks, Where is “above”? But the fact that the old routes have tended, because of language rigidity, to lose their everyday meaning and become almost closed doesn’t mean that the mountain is no longer there. It’s there and will be there as long as consciousness exists.
As a result of his experiments he concluded that imitation was a real evil that had to be broken before real rhetoric teaching could begin. This imitation seemed to be an external compulsion. Little children didn’t have it. It seemed to come later on, possibly as a result of school itself.
That sounded right, and the more he thought about it the more right it sounded. Schools teach you to imitate. If you don’t imitate what the teacher wants you get a bad grade. Here, in college, it was more sophisticated, of course; you were supposed to imitate the teacher in such a way as to convince the teacher you were not imitating, but taking the essence of the instruction and going ahead with it on your own. That got you A’s. Originality on the other hand could get you anything…from A to F. The whole grading system cautioned against it.
The purpose of abolishing grades and degrees is not to punish mules or to get rid of them but to provide an environment in which that mule can turn into a free man.
This surprising result supported a hunch he had had for a long time: that the brighter, more serious students were the least desirous of grades, possibly because they were more interested in the subject matter of the course, whereas the dull or lazy students were the most desirous of grades, possibly because grades told them if they were getting by.
Mountains should be climbed with as little effort as possible and without desire. The reality of your own nature should determine the speed. If you become restless, speed up. If you become winded, slow down. You climb the mountain in an equilibrium between restlessness and exhaustion. Then, when you’re no longer thinking ahead, each footstep isn’t just a means to an end but a unique event in itself. This leaf has jagged edges. This rock looks loose. From this place the snow is less visible, even though closer. These are things you should notice anyway. To live only for some future goal is shallow. It’s the sides of the mountain which sustain life, not the top. Here’s where things grow.
Mental reflection is so much more interesting than TV it’s a shame more people don’t switch over to it. They probably think what they hear is unimportant but it never is.
He wrote in one paper, “These estheticians think their subject is some kind of peppermint bonbon they’re entitled to smack their fat lips on; something to be devoured; something to be intellectually knifed, forked and spooned up bit by bit with appropriate delicate remarks and I’m ready to throw up. What they smack their lips on is the putrescence of something they long ago killed.”
Now, as the first step of the crystallization process, he saw that when Quality is kept undefined by definition, the entire field called esthetics is wiped out — completely disenfranchised — kaput. By refusing to define Quality he had placed it entirely outside the analytic process. If you can’t define Quality, there’s no way you can subordinate it to any intellectual rule. The estheticians can have nothing more to say. Their whole field, definition of Quality, is gone.
You take your analytic knife, put the point directly on the term Quality and just tap, not hard, gently, and the whole world splits, cleaves, right in two…hip and square, classic and romantic, technological and humanistic…and the split is clean. There’s no mess. No slop. No little items that could be one way or the other. Not just a skilled break but a very lucky break. Sometimes the best analysts, working with the most obvious lines of cleavage, can tap and get nothing but a pile of trash. And yet here was Quality; a tiny, almost unnoticeable fault line; a line of illogic in our concept of the universe; and you tapped it, and the whole universe came apart, so neatly it was almost unbelievable. He wished Kant were alive. Kant would have appreciated it. That master diamond cutter. He would see. Hold Quality undefined. That was the secret.
Thus did he seek to turn the attack. The subject for analysis, the patient on the table, was no longer Quality, but analysis itself. Quality was healthy and in good shape. Analysis, however, seemed to have something wrong with it that prevented it from seeing the obvious.
What was behind this smug presumption that what pleased you was bad, or at least unimportant in comparison to other things? It seemed the quintessence of the squareness he was fighting. Little children were trained not to do “just what they liked” but — but what? — Of course! What others liked. And which others? Parents, teachers, supervisors, policemen, judges, officials, kings, dictators. All authorities. When you are trained to despise “just what you like” then, of course, you become a much more obedient servant of others…a good slave. When you learn not to do “just what you like” then the System loves you.
Now he had that whole damned evil dilemma by the throat. The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification, that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not! He brought out his knife.
“The sun of quality,” he wrote, “does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. They are subordinate to it!
In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do much later on. For the time being one can meditate on the fact that the old English roots for the Buddha and Quality, God and good, appear to be identical.
Poincaré concluded that the axioms of geometry are conventions, our choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts, but it remains free and is limited only by the necessity of avoiding all contradiction. Thus it is that the postulates can remain rigorously true even though the experimental laws that have determined their adoption are only approximative. The axioms of geometry, in other words, are merely disguised definitions.
Then, having identified the nature of geometric axioms, he turned to the question, Is Euclidian geometry true or is Riemann geometry true?
He answered, The question has no meaning.
As well ask whether the metric system is true and the avoirdupois system is false; whether Cartesian coordinates are true and polar coordinates are false. One geometry can not be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.
The subliminal self, Poincaré said, looks at a large number of solutions to a problem, but only the interesting ones break into the domain of consciousness. Mathematical solutions are selected by the subliminal self on the basis of “mathematical beauty,” of the harmony of numbers and forms, of geometric elegance. “This is a true esthetic feeling which all mathematicians know,” Poincaré said, “but of which the profane are so ignorant as often to be tempted to smile.” But it is this harmony, this beauty, that is at the center of it all.
A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares. A person who cares about what he sees and does is a person who’s bound to have some characteristics of Quality.
Your mind was already thinking ahead to what you would do when the cover plate was off, and so it takes a little time to realize that this irritating minor annoyance of a torn screw slot isn’t just irritating and minor. You’re stuck. Stopped. Terminated. It’s absolutely stopped you from fixing the motorcycle.
What you’re up against is the great unknown, the void of all Western thought. You need some ideas, some hypotheses. Traditional scientific method, unfortunately, has never quite gotten around to say exactly where to pick up more of these hypotheses. Traditional scientific method has always been at the very best, 20-20 hindsight. It’s good for seeing where you’ve been. It’s good for testing the truth of what you think you know, but it can’t tell you where you ought to go, unless where you ought to go is a continuation of where you were going in the past. Creativity, originality, inventiveness, intuition, imagination…”unstuckness,” in other words…are completely outside its domain.
The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this ability to select the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of quality. He has to care!
I think the basic fault that underlies the problem of stuckness is traditional rationality’s insistence upon “objectivity,” a doctrine that there is a divided reality of subject and object. For true science to take place these must be rigidly separate from each other. “You are the mechanic. There is the motorcycle. You are forever apart from one another. You do this to it. You do that to it. These will be the results.”
This eternally dualistic subject-object way of approaching the motorcycle sounds right to us because we’re used to it. But it’s not right.
The past cannot remember the past. The future can’t generate the future. The cutting edge of this instant right here and now is always nothing less than the totality of everything there is.
Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot of structure. Value is the predecessor of structure.
To put it in more concrete terms: If you want to build a factory, or fix a motorcycle, or set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical, structured, dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn’t enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a sense of what’s good. That is what carries you forward. This sense isn’t just something you’re born with, although you are born with it. It’s also something you can develop. It’s not just “intuition,” not just unexplainable “skill” or “talent.” It’s the direct result of contact with basic reality, Quality, which dualistic reason has in the past tended to conceal.
Now finally let’s get back to that screw.
Let’s consider a reevaluation of the situation in which we assume that the stuckness now occurring, the zero of consciousness, isn’t the worst of all possible situations, but the best possible situation you could be in. After all, it’s exactly this stuckness that Zen Buddhists go to so much trouble to induce; through koans, deep breathing, sitting still and the like. Your mind is empty, you have a “hollow-flexible” attitude of “beginner’s mind.” You’re right at the front end of the train of knowledge, at the track of reality itself. Consider, for a change, that this is a moment to be not feared but cultivated. If your mind is truly, profoundly stuck, then you may be much better off than when it was loaded with ideas.
Stuckness shouldn’t be avoided. It’s the psychic predecessor of all real understanding. An egoless acceptance of stuckness is a key to an understanding of all Quality, in mechanical work as in other endeavors. It’s this understanding of Quality as revealed by stuckness which so often makes self-taught mechanics so superior to institute-trained men who have learned how to handle everything except a new situation.
Normally screws are so cheap and small and simple you think of them as unimportant. But now, as your Quality awareness becomes stronger, you realize that this one, individual, particular screw is neither cheap nor small nor unimportant. Right now this screw is worth exactly the selling price of the whole motorcycle, because the motorcycle is actually valueless until you get the screw out. With this reevaluation of the screw comes a willingness to expand your knowledge of it.
With the expansion of the knowledge, I would guess, would come a reevaluation of what the screw really is. If you concentrate on it, think about it, stay stuck on it for a long enough time, I would guess that in time you will come to see that the screw is less and less an object typical of a class and more an object unique in itself. Then with more concentration you will begin to see the screw as not even an object at all but as a collection of functions. Your stuckness is gradually eliminating patterns of traditional reason.
In the past when you separated subject and object from one another in a permanent way, your thinking about them got very rigid. You formed a class called “screw” that seemed to be inviolable and more real than the reality you are looking at. And you couldn’t think of how to get unstuck because you couldn’t think of anything new, because you couldn’t see anything new.
Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it’s also reflected in modern street argot. “Getting with it,” “digging it,” “grooving on it” are all slang reflections of this identity. It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts. And it is this identity that modern, dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by Phædrus’ definition, it has no Quality.
The result is rather typical of modern technology, an overall dullness of appearance so depressing that it must be overlaid with a veneer of “style” to make it acceptable. And that, to anyone who is sensitive to romantic Quality, just makes it all the worse. Now it’s not just depressingly dull, it’s also phony. Put the two together and you get a pretty accurate basic description of modern American technology: stylized cars and stylized outboard motors and stylized typewriters and stylized clothes. Stylized refrigerators filled with stylized food in stylized kitchens in stylized houses. Plastic stylized toys for stylized children, who at Christmas and birthdays are in style with their stylish parents. You have to be awfully stylish yourself not to get sick of it once in a while. It’s the style that gets you; technological ugliness syruped over with romantic phoniness in an effort to produce beauty and profit by people who, though stylish, don’t know where to start because no one has ever told them there’s such a thing as Quality in this world and it’s real, not style. Quality isn’t something you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from which the tree must start.
Peace of mind isn’t at all superficial to technical work. It’s the whole thing. That which produces it is good work and that which destroys it is bad work. The specs, the measuring instruments, the quality control, the final check-out, these are all means toward the end of satisfying the peace of mind of those responsible for the work. What really counts in the end is their peace of mind, nothing else.
I say inner peace of mind. It has no direct relationship to external circumstances. It can occur to a monk in meditation, to a soldier in heavy combat or to a machinist taking off that last ten-thousandth of an inch. It involves unselfconsciousness, which produces a complete identification with one’s circumstances, and there are levels and levels of this identification and levels and levels of quietness quite as profound and difficult of attainment as the more familiar levels of activity. The mountains of achievement are Quality discovered in one direction only, and are relatively meaningless and often unobtainable unless taken together with the ocean trenches of self-awareness…so different from self-consciousness…which result from inner peace of mind.
This inner peace of mind occurs on three levels of understanding. Physical quietness seems the easiest to achieve, although there are levels and levels of this too, as attested by the ability of Hindu mystics to live buried alive for many days. Mental quietness, in which one has no wandering thoughts at all, seems more difficult, but can be achieved. But value quietness, in which one has no wandering desires at all but simply performs the acts of his life without desire, that seems the hardest.
I like the word “gumption” because it’s so homely and so forlorn and so out of style it looks as if it needs a friend and isn’t likely to reject anyone who comes along. It’s an old Scottish word, once used a lot by pioneers, but which, like “kin,” seems to have all but dropped out of use. I like it also because it describes exactly what happens to someone who connects with Quality. He gets filled with gumption.
The Greeks called it enthousiasmos, the root of “enthusiasm.” which means literally “filled with theos,” or God, or Quality. See how that fits?
A person filled with gumption doesn’t sit around dissipating and stewing about things. He’s at the front of the train of his own awareness, watching to see what’s up the track and meeting it when it comes. That’s gumption.
If you’re going to repair a motorcycle, an adequate supply of gumption is the first and most important tool. If you haven’t got that you might as well gather up all the other tools and put them away, because they won’t do you any good.
We see much more of this loneliness now. It’s paradoxical that where people are the most closely crowded, in the big coastal cities in the East and West, the loneliness is the greatest. Back where people were so spread out in western Oregon and Idaho and Montana and the Dakotas you’d think the loneliness would have been greater, but we didn’t see it so much.
A person who knows how to fix motorcycles…with Quality…is less likely to run short of friends than one who doesn’t. And they aren’t going to see him as some kind of object either. Quality destroys objectivity every time.
Rhetoric is an art, Aristotle began, because it can be reduced to a rational system of order.
That just left Phædrus aghast. Stopped. He’d been prepared to decode messages of great subtlety, systems of great complexity in order to understand the deeper inner meaning of Aristotle, claimed by many to be the greatest philosopher of all time. And then to get hit, right off, straight in the face, with an asshole statement like that! It really shook him.
“What moves the Greek warrior to deeds of heroism,” Kitto comments, “is not a sense of duty as we understand it…duty towards others: it is rather duty towards himself. He strives after that which we translate `virtue’ but is in Greek areté, `excellence’ — we shall have much to say about areté. It runs through Greek life.”
There, Phædrus thinks, is a definition of Quality that had existed a thousand years before the dialecticians ever thought to put it to word-traps. Anyone who cannot understand this meaning without logical definiens and definendum and differentia is either lying or so out of touch with the common lot of humanity as to be unworthy of receiving any reply whatsoever. Phædrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of “duty toward self ” which is an almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes described as the “one” of the Hindus. Can the dharma of the Hindus and the “virtue” of the ancient Greeks be identical?
Then Phædrus feels a tugging to read the passage again, and he does so and then — what’s this?! — “That which we translate `virtue ‘ but is in Greek `excellence.”‘
Lightning hits!
Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine “virtue.” But areté. Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been doing it right all along.
“And what is written well and what is written badly…need we ask Lysias or any other poet or orator who ever wrote or will write either a political or other work, in meter or out of meter, poet or prose writer, to teach us this?”
What is good, Phædrus, and what is not good…need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
It is what he was saying months before in the classroom in Montana, a message Plato and every dialectician since him had missed, since they all sought to define the Good in its intellectual relation to things. But what he sees now is how far he has come from that. He is doing the same bad things himself. His original goal was to keep Quality undefined, but in the process of battling against the dialecticians he has made statements, and each statement has been a brick in a wall of definition he himself has been building around Quality. Any attempt to develop an organized reason around an undefined quality defeats its own purpose. The organization of the reason itself defeats the quality. Everything he has been doing has been a fool’s mission to begin with.
Posted in Reviews | No Comments »
The much acclaimed book, “The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari” by Robin S. Sharma, came to my attention when my wife’s cousin and my Uncle, both, recommended it. I probably raised my hopes too much because upon reading half the book, I recognized a sense of disappointment with myself. I had expected this book to be mesmerizing tale, a story of a monk revealing a hard-earned but deceptively simple viewpoint on how to live. With so many books that try to approach this subject, I had not heard much about the others. I was, therefore, expecting this book to be truly original.I was disappointed by several aspects of the book. Firstly, it is not a story. The lessons are not interpreted by the experiences of the characters as they face life, but rather, the lessons are handed down to the reader on a platter, more like any other self-help book. The book starts off as a story, but within a few quick pages settles into a conversation between a teacher and a student. A few pages further and the conversation shrinks to mainly a monologue by the teacher, with the student unfailingly accepting all the lessons, and obediently egging the teacher to go on. If this was how the book was to be, I do not see the pretense of attempting a story. It would have been to the benefit of the reader if the book were written in the form of a sermon, like most self-help books are.
My friends Ashwin and Tania recommended this book and the following is from an email I wrote to them after reading the book.How goes life? Or in Mohun Biswas’s words, “How life, maan?”. I am still struggling to figure out the book. The tragi-comic look at the entire life of a man, leaves you wondering if it is a happy ending, a sad ending or the less categorizable, yet more recognizable ending. Endings as they typically are in real life, sadly abrupt in a way, never having achieved life’s true potential, yet satisfyingly complete, having achieved the one goal in his life. The beautiful and believable sense of humour, never taking life too seriously, is the only way he gets through life, which is otherwise overwhelmingly complicated, sad and painful.
“Reading this book, tears flow down unabated and without warning …”, Kavita had informed me. “But it is such a beautiful story”, she had added. I was looking for a window into the people and politics, culture and psyche of Afghanistan, and this book seemed to promise a mix of both a “beautiful story” and “a window”. I picked it up at Borders in Cary, NC, and as I normally do, started to read it over a weekend in the store. The next weekend, less than even halfway through the novel, I bought it.Though Afghanistan, its people and their ways add colour and concrete to the story, the main themes of the story are timeless and universal - the pleasure of friendship, the pain of squandering it, of coming to terms with one’s true self, of growing up, of sacrifice, of ideals, of living up to those ideals. Amir, the protagonist of the novel, grows up in the 60’s and early 70’s in Afghanistan, where he lives in a big house with his father, their servant Ali and Ali’s son Hassan. Amir finds unfailing and radiant loyalty and friendship in Hassan. “Baba”, as Amir calls his father, is the ideal human being in Amir’s eyes, as he grows up. Amir strives to live up to his father’s expectations. The story winds its way through Amir’s childhood, Hassan’s unquestioning friendship, Amir’s relation with his father and Ali, through political turmoil in Afghanistan, how it affects all the people Amir knows, Amir’s youth in the USA, and his search for something that he is desperately missing in life - an atonement for his sins which brings him back to his motherland and the final redemption. Amir helps us all grow up a little, as he discovers what he has lost along the way and what he has gained. The development of his morality and values, shaped by self-reflection and instinct, by scheming and by accident, is a wonderful mirror into our own values and how we pick them up.
Siddhartha is the story of a young Brahmin boy, Siddhartha, and his personal quest for peace. In his early adulthood he discerns oncoming discontent. He realizes that the best intent and efforts on the part of his family, his pious father, his learned teachers, the glorious writings in all sacred books, would not be able to satisfy his search for meaning, his search for Brahman. The main doctrine in the book, which makes many critics call this book a harmonious blend of Eastern and Western Philosophies, is that true wisdom can not be taught. It exists, but has to be reached by each person by his or her own path.Siddhartha’s journey takes us through his mastery of Brahmin rituals early in his life, but which still leave him uncertain and wanting. Then he gives up his notion of self, and becomes a Samana. A wanderer. He learns to overcome the throes of hunger and thirst, the urge to speak, and practices patience. After several years of mastering the life of a Samana, he realizes that he has not yet found an answer to satisfy his sense of purpose in life. He meets Gotama, the Buddha, during that time and has a very interesting conversation, where he accepts graciously the greatness of the Buddha for achieving his end in life, but disagrees respectfully with the Buddha about the ability to impart wisdom through teachings of any kind. Buddha acknowledges Siddhartha’s point of view and lets him continue his search. This discussion between Siddhartha and the Buddha is a pivotal point in the book. The fact that Siddhartha shares the same first name and to some extent the same pangs of soul-searching as the Buddha, indicates that it is no coincidence that Herman Hesse chose to name the protagonist of this story so. He is really probably trying to say how the supposedly Western concepts of individualism and freedom of thought, were really not just tolerated by the Eastern philosophies as when the Buddha acknowledges Siddhartha’s personal quest, but indeed, are the origin of the Eastern philosophies. Gotama, before he became the Buddha (which literally means the Enlightened One), went through several experiences in life that left him unsatisfied and with a sense of purposeless rote, just as the experiences Siddhartha went through. The rituals, the mythology, the communal conformity and sense of peace in humble acceptance of fate that mark Eastern religions and philosophies, the author probably argues, only bring some order to an otherwise fierce sense of individualism, and an undercurrent of potentially chaotic search for one’s own religion.
I usually do not read pure fiction, where the pure involves fiction without any after-effects. Fiction that ends when the book ends is not something that excites me. But what is a story if not fiction. Be it facts or ideas, they become so much more tangible when served with a soup of characters, with their quirks and their passions, with incidents that resonate with something that every person can participate in, with a story. A yarn pulled out of thin air may often last longer than a string pulled out of rigid, limited spool of the collective observation. It’s the same with newspapers. They become a boring, tiresome and apparently pointless jumble of facts, unless the editorial tries to show a subjective view-point that ties together the brutal reality that the other reports blandly serve up, into something that makes a story. The reporters job is to be objective and precise. The editor can then provide his commentary. Not his facts, but his commentary. His story.I usually do not read pure fiction. This book is purely fictional, but reveals much more than any number of factual observations can ever attempt to. This book is not pure fiction. The after-effect is strong. The book provides answers. The answers are everywhere in the book, but never is it provided in a direct, authoritative tone. The answers are provided by raising simple yet pertinent questions. The hero of the book, shows us the meaning of belief and the reason for belief.
I read this play in a single sitting. The play is written in a style that helps you draw the imagery, the sounds, sights and smells intended by the author. Arthur Miller, who passed away this year, wrote this Pulitzer Prize winning play in 1949. It was converted to a movie in 1952. It helped my understanding of the “American Dream”, a phrase I have heard mentioned many times in the USA. It added a new perspective to my understanding of this phrase. “American Dream” to me brought visions of owning a house, a car, raising a family and making money. Death of a Salesman added to that image a new shade. The cost. At what cost do you live the American Dream? What moral and social pressures do you have to overcome to live this dream? What is this dream worth? Is this the dream one should go after? What if your understanding of the dream is wrong? What if this realization comes too late in life?Death of a Salesman is a poignant story about growing turmoil in an aging man’s soul. His confidence in his values and benevolent trust in the society’s morality are eroded gradually by reality. He never is able to find a clear direction or a satisfying reason for the way his and his family’s life turned out. Searching forever to find the point at which his “dream” betrayed him, the Salesman, tries to find his peace by making the biggest deal of his life. He kills himself in the hope that what he could not achieve in life, could be achieved by his death, in the form of insurance money that his family could use and remember him by.