Rating: 
Summary: Riding on the Yellow Line
Review: Hehe, get the pun in the title there? Riding...writing...no takers? Eh, I thought it was clever, anyway.You know, reviews on this book tend to sort themselves into two camps, the five stars and the one stars. G'head, look, I'll wait. Back? Well I gave it three stars. Yeah yeah, I know, "just to be different". Actually, the score isn't what I personally had in mind; I wanted a 5i to keep with the whole theme of reevaluation of standards (5i would be an imaginary number, for all you non-math majors), but a regular three stars is all I can get away with. The problem I've got is that neither camp seems to understand the underlying point. Those that hate it tend to attack some of the pointedly irrational reasoning as an intellectual cop-out, and then go about logically deconstructing his argument by showing his dialectic errors and yada yada yada. Yes, he makes a logically unsound argument; Pirsig comes right out and says it, and that may very well be a cop-out. But which is worse, the philosopher who retreats into these illogical defenses or his attackers who don't have the balls to follow him and defeat him on his own ground? The way to effectively win a debate is to turn your opponent's argument back upon itself, not to run back to your own incomplete abstractions. Example: don't use words like "substantive" and "subjective" (which Pirsig goes to great pains to redefine) and apply the Webster's definition to them. It's just weak. Someone in one such review said on the dichotomy of subjective and objective that "there is in fact only one, the objective; the subjective refers to the fact that we can only see one portion of the objective universe." First, even in traditional definitions of these terms, this is NOT true. Just go to a crazy house, or better yet, just pay attention the next time you're dreaming; the subjective is EVERYTHING. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be on Amazon writing an opinion because there would be no opinion, only objectivity. Duh. Kant knew this, Freud knew this, and so did everyone before and after them. Second, the very argument proposed is a redefinition of these terms; to go back to the old definitions is to simply miss the point--in other words, language like this basically reduces everything else you've said to absolutely nil. Now for the five star camp...oh God. "It really changed my life", "it really had an effect on me", "it really breaks down the system", "it's really original"...what did it REALLY do? Honestly, tell me, I'm dying to hear, because the fact of the matter is that most of the stuff contained in the book is derivative. Some people get the credit that they deserve, like Poincare and Thoreau (and if this isn't a sequel to Walden, I don't know what else it could be). However, the most influential thinkers don't. Nietszche broke down the subject/object dichotomy a LONG time ago and in just this fashion, and even took it a step further; he proposed an entire restructuring not just of thought but of grammar. If the divisions between subject and object are artificial, then so are subject and predicate; therefore, as the subject and object are actually one in the same perceptively, then the subject should not be seperated from the actions he/she/it performs--indeed, those predicate actions are what DEFINES the subject, not the other way around. To make my point, get off the soap-box. You honestly do more to make people shy away than to win any converts. I've read little in this book that is actually original, except maybe the part about a man riding his motorcycle. Now THAT is creative. But for me...sure, I like it. It's been a great read, and the unification of Eastern and Western thought is especially provocative. And whether you like it or not, the fact is that technology has, in some way, caused an alienation in the 20th century in the consumer; Pirsig thought he had an answer, and here it is. Maybe he's wrong, but at least it's a start, and not a wholly bad one either. It's the first time that many concepts (like Zen and Bhudda) have been explained to me in terms that made concrete, relative sense, not just mystic mumbo-jumbo. It tends towards density and boredom sometimes, but I believe Pirsig has a point for this. He invokes Thoreau, who used an extremely similar technique, early on, and in one of my favorite parts elucidates in a VERY tedious manner the various equipment he takes with him on the road, and I couldn't help but be reminded of Thoreau's bean-planting ventures in Walden (especially since Pirsig mentions how boring Thoreau can be right after he's gone on about his knapsack for 5 pages; it's called tongue-in-cheek humor). On the whole, though...just too idealistic, yet again just like Thoreau. But read it for yourself--I do highly recommend it regardless of it's shortcomings--and make your own decision; that's the whole point, not to hear my rant or rave on it. One final point to make to the detractors. *IF* you're going to argue against this book, it's so simple to do that you look like a moron for not doing it. Pirsig says Quality is self-evident, right? And you say that you don't like the book, right? And an understood point that he makes is that Quality is present in this book. Well by God, then that Quality hasn't made itself self-evident, therefore it isn't present to defend itself, and therefore Pirsig's argument is in ruins. See how easy that was?
Rating: 
Summary: Thpppt!
Review: I read this book while riding a train from New Mexico to New Jersey, this seemed an appropriate venue given the subject matter. I had meant to read the book for quite some time, I had heard rave reviews from friends, and I believe that the book had even appeared on one summer reading list I had received in high-school.
I was shocked by how bad the book was. First, as a book, it is gramatically a mess. Normally, this would probably be of little import for a "book of ideas", but Robert M. Pirsig was apparently a professor in a university English Department, consequently, he ought to know better.
However, and more importantly, the substantive content of the novel struck me as not only poorly reasoned, but somehow ominous. Mr. Pirsig initially gets stuck (for lack of a better term) on the fact that he cannot define "quality." He refuses to accept that the term quality is refers to an essentialy subjective measurement. Consequently, he searches for an objective definition of quality. Failing he decides to reject the "dichotomy" which would divide the universe into objective and subjective views, and refuses to give the word any definition. He then decides that quality is the meeting of the objective and the subjective, the moment at which out subjective desired meet the objective universe and cause all creation. The Tao, except formed from human desire.
First, "quality" does in fact refer to a subjective characteristic. Something is considered of high quality if it does what the observers want it to do. Second, I do not think that Mr. Pirsig is justified as characterising modern views on the objective and the subjective as a dichotomy. That would imply two equally valid views of the universe. There is in fact only one, the objective, the term subjective refers to the fact that we can see only a small portion of the objective universe, and only from one angle at a time. The subjective view of reality is not a viewpoint that competes with the objective, it is that incomplete portion of the objective universe to which any person had access.
Finally, Mr. Pirsig's definition of quality struck me as ludicrous. I do not believe that there can be a meeting place between human desires and the objective universe, our desires, like we ourselves, are part of the universe, viewed objectively. Further, it seems the height of arrogance to argue that the motive force behind all creation is our subjective desires. Were that true nothing would have been created prior to human beings, and nothing is being created outside the sphere of our influence. Neither is true.
Finally, I found Mr. Pirsig's style extremely grating. In every instance in which a person dared disagree with him, Mr. Pirsig immediately attributed the fracture either to some secret motive, or to the fact that his opponent lacks the intelectual independence to see the truth. The thought never occurs that his detractors may have a point. Ultimately, I do not think Robert Pirsig was interested in any sort ot dialectic, or any forward moving debate, to do so would require he grant creedence to opposing viewpoints. Mr. Pirsig seeks followers.
All in all, I think the book was pedantic, poorly written and poorly thought. Mr. Pirsig's own ego provides to great a road block to allow him to make any serious inquiries into values, or into anything else.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing!
Review: On the surface, this book is an autobiographical account of a father and son traveling across country on a motorcycle. It's also the story of a man's struggle to come to terms with his past. The storyline, in and of itself, is interesting enough, but there is so much more beneath the surface. A myraid of questions flow through your mind as the book progresses, but Pirsig slowly--often painstakenly--reveals the truth about his characters as he outlines his metaphysics of quality. Now, I'm no philosopher, but there were many instances when it appeared to me that Pirsig was backing himself into a logical corner; however, through his mastery of language (his philosophical specialty is rhetoric) was able to justify his ideas. I suppose the value of this book is determined by how it imacts the reader, so you'll have to read it to "feel" it. After all, as Pirsig expresses, quality exists in everything as a matter of perception. The bottom line, as Pirsig describes it is, "the study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of rationality itself. Working on a motorcycle, working well, caring, is to become part of a process, to achieve an inner peace of mind. The motorcycle is primarily a mental phenomenon." Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking and inspirational
Review: Pirsig's ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE and Kerouac's ON THE ROAD inspired me to hit the highways in this great country. I camped around the U.S. for several months, spent time with people from all walks of life. Along the way, I helped others and others helped me. Pirsig's book encourages healthy introspection, while Kerouac's book promotes extroverted self-exploration. Regardless of your age, if you are independent, read these books and hit the road. You will be delighted with what you discover about yourself and reassured in what you experience with others. When you get home...write about your experiences...there may be a book in there somewhere. Robert John Estko - author of the suspense thriller, EVIL, BE GONE (available on Amazon.com)
Rating:
Summary: AN OFT-ASSAILED BUT TRULY BRILLIANT BOOK
Review: I write only to defend a gifted author's brilliant work of philosophy. I stopped by this page to check the reviews, and was horrified to find so much negative feeling. My argument, obnoxious as it might sound, is that all the gripes others have with this book are rooted in their fundamental misunderstandings of the text.
This book is a work of popular philosophy, which explores previously uncharted territory somewhere between Mysticism and dialectical engaging of truth. It deals with an overview of Western though in this area, and proposes its own unique theses. I have changed the way I live my life based upon the sage advice of this novel.
As far as I can see it, one of the main criticisms of the novel is that it starts off well, with a compelling problem, and what seems to be an innovative solution to it, but pans out to be an intellectual cop-out. This is not the case. The Amazon.com review declares, "His solution to a synthesis of the rational and creative by elevating Quality to a metaphysical level simply repeats the mistakes of the premodern philosophers." Which premodern philosophers would those be? I believe that Mr. Bruya means "pre-socratic" not "pre-modern," but even this criticism is invalid. Pirsig acknowledges that he owes an intellectual debt to the Sophists of ancient Greece, but his ideas far surpass theirs. Rationality, as it exists today, did not exist at the time of the Sophists, therefore he must necessarily expand beyond the scope of their understanding of philosophy to maintain his relevance to the modern day, which he certainly does, through many specific modern examples.
Mr. Bruya continues to argue that, "the narrator's claims to originality turn out to be overstated, his reasoning questionable, and his understanding of the history of Western thought sketchy." Sure, Mr. Pirsig had intellectual precursors, such as the Sophists, the 20th century pragmatists (William James, etc...), and others, but I challenge anyone reading this to come up with someone who has prefigured Quality. Secondly, his "reasoning" is "questionable": give me one example of faulty logic in the book! Pirsig, though he rejects the supremacy of dialectic, is still a master-dialectician, and his logical entrenchments are flawless. Finally, his understanding of Western though is most certainly top-drawer. Yes, it is incomplete, because the majority of Western though does not speak to his point, but that which he does cover is correct. I challenge anyone to come up with an incorrect point he makes about that which he does cover. As a student of philosophy, Mr. Pirsig's command is entirely correct, in my understanding of things.
I also challenge whatever Mr. "Rampageous Cuss" has to say, as I feel that his command of the book, and the ideas therein, is incomplete and juvenile. He states, "It's neither well structured nor well written, and its philosophical insights are more deeply felt than deeply thought." The writing is extremely fine, and if Mr. Cuss was not engaged by it, it speaks to his short attention span, not the author's skill. He does not use flowery, empty rhetoric, his writing is immediate and to-the-point, reminiscent of other American greats, such as Thoreau, or Stephen Crane. The structure of the book is extremely complex, and Mr. Cuss' comment on it simply belies his faulty understanding of it. There are, in fact, three separate characters in the book: Phaedrus, the narrator of the novel, and then Robert Pirsig the writer himself. That the narrator seems to contradict his own philosophy is not a flaw in the writing, it is a carefully structured didactic narrative, in which the contradictions are meant to point out the ultimate philosophy of the book. The narrator of the book is not meant to be a morally immaculate character. He is merely a character meant to express a point.
Mr. Cuss then says, "Unhappily he decides he was a misunderstood genius, names his pre-breakdown self 'Phaedrus' and rambles into a tendentious complaint about academia as he relates his earlier life." Robert Pirsig was a misunderstood genius. What part of this book could be classified as "rambling" is beyond me. Mr. Pirsig seems sincere and intelligent in every stage of his discourse, and, like all of the other negative reviewers, Mr. Cuss has failed to cite any specific examples of this "rambling" making himself effectively immune to criticism. His complains about academia are well-supported with specific evidence of his empirical experience in academia. His arguments are all logical and correct.
Finally Mr. Cuss makes the grandly fallacious assertion that, "as the narrator he is pompous and self obsessed, struggling with a massive inferiority complex. He is given to sweeping pronunciamentos and overblown metaphors." The narrator of the book is meant as a teaching tool, in the same way Plato used the Sophists in his dialogues as advocates of bad ideas to reenforce his overall good ideas. The narrator is meant to seem pretentious and self-contradictory. His terrible relationship with Chris is proof of this. He finishes his speeches on caring about human rapport, and then treats his son horribly. He is a character, meant to illuminate the message of the novel, nothing more. I would also argue that not only are there no "overblown" metaphors, but that the language is largely non-metaphorical. Pirsig rejects metaphors as a means of understanding, as Plato used them (the Horse and Chariot analogy of the soul comes to mind). If Mr. Cuss is referring to the vague descriptions of Quality, as "overblown metaphors," he needs to understand that Quality cannot be subordinated to language, and there is only the realm of analogue to clarify it.
Overall, this is the second best book I have ever read, and I assure you all that if you read and take the time to understand this book, you too will love it. It is a sublime journey to the high country of the mind, and you will not be sorry.
Rating:
Summary: Unique
Review: Many readers have reviewed this book with a fair degree of criticism for its ramblings and supposedly pretentious tone. Although the overall reception is generally positive, a few things about this book need to be pointed out. Pirsig seems to have written this "Chautaqua" in a diary-like, unedited stream of consciousness style. Parts of it are rough around the edges, rough on the mind. This book will probably be different from anything else you've ever read. Not necessarily for the ideas Pirsig formulates, but for his presentation and his purpose. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance appears to me to have been written largely for Pirsig's own sake and for his own appreciation. Writing for personal clarification. Of course he states more than once that he also hopes to bring about change across our society. In order to appreciate the book, you have to accept it for what it is - and nothing else. It is not an easy-reading novel, with straight-forward narrative and a moral at the end. It is not a carefully reasoned philosophical treatise. Pirsig seems to fit his years of musings on life and perception and nearly every "big" question everyone has pondered at one time or another, as well as a fair number of specific real-life questions (such as the operation of our education system, and, significantly, (especially for the time this was written) the repulsion of large segments of society to new technology), into an accepted cultural form. I believe he creates the plot he does for several reasons. A plot makes the philosophical ideas easier to swallow piece-meal, the label of "novel" makes it easier to disseminate this work around society, and, frankly, Pirsig's ideas and his dramatic narrative work in perfect harmony. If we as the readers don't relate to and don't actually become Phaedrus and his son from the get-go, the book's point is dimmed in our eyes. The lifting of the fog in the final pages is not just an appropriate literary trick, matching the climactic scene. It is for us. And for Pirsig. Preconceptions of art and reasoning can't just be dropped as we are exposed to new things. But they can be suspended and questioned at appropiate times. Pirsig's ideas may not mesh completely coherently. He may not have the originality of Plato. And maybe his history of Western thought is sketchy. But I doubt he cares. This book is often messy reading and sometimes incredibly lucid and reasoned reading. The ideas of Tao and Quality and "grooving it" are completely appropriate and, to my taste, deliciously presented, if not entirely new articulated concepts for many readers. We should remember the subtitle on this is "An Inquiry into Values." I think this is more a book portraying one man's mode of perceiving and living than anything. It is challenging and relevant today as I'm sure it was 30 years ago. It INQUIRES into our value system, and that explains its unconventional, conversational format. I have wondered if the title was simply tacked on to attract a Zen-crazed segment of America in the 1970s. But then I guess it doesn't matter. Pirsig doesn't call it Zen BUDDHISM and the, etc. So it is an appropriate title. And if you were attracted to reading this because of smug and shallow appreciation of Zen, then I hope Pirsig's style is accessible enough to deck you and then set you right. And I'm betting that was his hope as well. If we dislike this book because it doesn't correspond to a conventional expectation of a novel or really any other type of work, then is it Pirsig's fault or our own for becoming attached to the expectation in the first place? This is challenging and Quality reading.
Rating:
Summary: Quality comes from people who care
Review: I recommend this book highly. It is an excellent book, although I would agree with other reviewers that it is not an easy read. A man's quest for the definition of quality was of most interest. I found the underlying story of a difficult relationship between a man and his son interesting, but the author definitely teaches the reader a lot more about quality than parenting. With regards to quality, while I did not feel that Pirsig was totally successful in defining quality, he was right on target when he defined it's source. The core message and fundamental heart of the book was Pirsig's commentary relative to quality coming from people who care. Peace of mind according to the author is not superficial to technical work (and this could be extended to all types of work), it is really all that matters. It is produced by good work and destroyed by bad work. Specifications, measuring instruments, etc. are all tools to help satisfy the peace of mind of those doing the work. Knowing that the people who did the job care about what they are doing gives one the peace of mind that quality work has been accomplished and that a quality product has been made.
Rating:
Summary: strange reactions from readers...
Review: I was rather taken aback when I read the reviews for this one. I was unaware that it was a love-it-or-hate-it book, not when I first read it anyway. Looking back though, I think that very possibly my mind-set at the time brought a lot to bare on my opinion and interpretation of this, Pirsig's most well known work.
I vividly remember being on a car journey a few years ago whilst in the throes of a quite unpleasant mental breakdown. I was coincidentally reading the section of the book that dealt with cars. Mr. Pirsig speaks of the framing effect that a car window can have on the view of the outside world rushing by. He compares the effect to a television screen, intimating that, the society in which we live, so driven by T.V., tends to reduce everything to a spectator activity. Even the majesty of the outside world is reduced to the level of a nature program, hence his more breezy choice of transport. It was just one of those great moments that one can find through reading, when you look up from the page you're on and say, "hmmm." I don't claim that it's an original thought, in fact it's almost hackneyed in this day and age, but it's not the actual conceits in the early part of this book that matter, rather the way in which they are presented. I felt from the car speech and others, not that new ideas were being expounded, just that they were being delivered in a very intriguing way; a sparce, concise way. I like to call this kind of style 'blue'. It's a word I first felt compelled to use when reading Kerouac's "On The Road". It refers to that brooding, tip-of-the-iceberg intelligence that these writers can convey through the most spartan of sentences. Pirsig, I suspected, had more than just 'pop' Zen to deal with...
As I read on, my suspicions were confirmed as Pirsig begins to reveal an entirely different side to his personality. Not even a side, far more another person, a person he names Phaedrus. The name comes from Plato's "Republic". Socrates, whilst conducting one of his conversational seminars, is confronted by a young man who, because of his particularly intense and confrontational nature, is given the name of Phaedrus-The wolf.
This for me was the clincher; not, after all, a pop science/philosophy book, but instead, an intense kind of thriller born of the most complex fear there is, the fear of one's self. That's not to say that the ideas of quality, Zen and motorcycle maintenance aren't tackled with wonderful aplomb, it's just that the real educational aspect of the book comes not from Pirsig's discourses on rotisseries and the like, but through the interweaving of two minds travelling different paths around the same idea. Not to give away the spectacular climax, one mind has a future, the other is history. Me-oh-my, the things we can learn from history.
I loved the book, but as I've mentioned, I may well have had a more than usually good idea of where the author was coming from at the time that I first read it. I doubt this explains my affection for it entirely though, and regardless of your mental state, you should give this one a whirl.
Rating:
Summary: Straddling the middle of the road...
Review: A lot of people have noted that this book inspires love-it-or-hate-it reactions. I'm not sure whether I'm an exception to the rule or somehow just in both camps at once. There were some parts of this book which I found fascinating and wonderful. There were other parts which I found interminable and uninspiring. Am I sorry I read the book? No, I think that in sum it was a worthwhile experience. Would I rush to read it again? No, I wouldn't, and I would offer only a qualified recommendation to anyone who asked if they should read this book. I would tell them that if they were willing to be patient and were willing to allot a significant chunk of time to the book then they would almost certainly get something out of it and they would have enhanced, in some small way, their general cultural literacy.
Rating:
Summary: Don't read beyond the title
Review: What a great title. And even an intriguing concept...explaining zen via the motorcycle. Unfortunately, the book turns out to be a long winded narcissistic lecture by a person you wouldn't want to be stuck in a car with, never mind a motorcycle. Don't waste your time. Take a mindful walk instead.
|
