Comments on Rebel Wisdom’s Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Book Club with Jonathan Rowson
This was a wonderful book club. On top of it, this is the second case of Pirsig coming up on an influential channel in a short period of time, a few weeks ago Robert Breedlove on Lex Fridman.
Rowson did a very nice job summarizing and commenting on this classic. It’s obvious he loves this book as does David Fuller. And if thinkers of this caliber like this book so much, that’s good news. Interestingly, Rowson is pretty famous as a chess master and I’ve enjoyed looking at that part of his career and what appears his passion project, the Perspectiva site…which is contributing to the philosophical and spiritual way forward that we need. I don’t see that Rowson has yet talked to John Vervaeke, so I hope he does
So I want to comment a little on Rowson’s presentation:
Around 15 minutes into the video, Rowson said that systems have souls and emotions and epistemologies. If you look at this thought the Pirsig lens, this makes sense because everything is striving towards the Good, which manifests in the MoQ as freedom. This means there is an element of panpsychism in Pirsig’s theory, because anything that has movement…meaning any atom or any galaxy, any microbe or cell or any tiger, any pauper or any king, is always moving towards liberation, or trying to maintain that liberation. The pauper wants to overcome his shackles, the king wants to protect his power. The atom wants to connect with other atoms because they can get more done that way and the galaxy apparently is expanding.
As I’ve indicated in other videos, comparison to McGilchrist is apt. I’m basing this on the Master & Emissary, because I haven’t read his second book that Rowson refers to. But Mc theory is another way of observing the same phenomenon. More precise than Pirsig in the sense that Mcg entire theory is about the differences between the two systems of thought you could say, whereas Pirsig sets these up as the essential conjugate of Quality…later of course he will reject this division in favor of Dynamic and static Quality, but the two modes of thinking or consciousness or perception are absolutely real, line up with McG, and remain very high-Quality patterns of value, with solid footing in the biological level.
I’ve heard Phaedrus pronounced PHEE-DRUS, PHAY-DRUS I have to say, that’s the first time I’ve heard it pronounced PHI-DRUS, I am probably saying it wrong, but that’s how the voice actor Michael Kramer pronounces it in the audiobook.
So Rowson thinks Phaedrus was too analytical to get to the bottom of his metaphysics, and I think that’s right. His rationality ran out. I love the way Rowson frames that the book discusses the end of the usefulness of rationality.
As his memory emerges, Robert is working with him to develop something usable I guess you could say, and in a way it’s Robert’s regular guy insight that is behind the Gumption Chautauqua. I think one way to look at it, and I don’t think there’s only “right” interpretation of this book only Quality ones, is that Phaedrus can trust Robert to respect his work, and Robert can now trust Phaedrus not to blow it and end up back in the psych ward. Which is roughly what Rowson says.
I want, with the utmost respect to Rowson, expand on a question – what is Pirsig’s notion of development?. And this particular question is important to RW because a developmental approach is key to the understanding how people can transcend the Meaning Crisis. It’s part of Wilber’s approach and Wilber is a big part of the RW philosophical approach.
What I would say is Pirsig does have a developmental model. It’s not a stage model, it’s a layering model I guess you’d say. And Rowson touched on the evolutionary levels, so in that sense, the MoQ is a developmental philosophy. Also, Because Pirsig’s philo is a metaphysics, you can actually map the MoQ onto any psychological or philo endeavor and view it through this metaphysical lens. Therefore, it can certainly map onto human development, Keegan, who Rowson mentions says that development, or transformation is a personal Copernican shift. That is a great way of describing shifting your metaphysical understanding from SoM to the MoQ.
In Chapter 11, Pirsig explores the route to Phaedrus MoQ through the lens of academic Western philosophy…specifically Hume and Kant. The example he gives is that of Hume, and it’s a developmental question - that a child who is completely sense-deprived will not develop will not have a thought in his head. But according to Kant, there is a built-in discernment mechanism, so that can’t be true. We are born with a set of features akin to common sense, like perception of time. In the MoQ both are true…and each has a vestige of a feature of MoQ. The empirical nature of knowledge is related to Dynamic Quality, and the Kant’s a priori are not a set of features, they are social patterns that are imparted on us through indoctrination (and I mean this in a neutral sense) first by our mothers, and then society at large. IN chapter 3, he discusses how an empirical phenomenon of things dropping to the ground is socialized in us through the ghost of Newton, the law of gravity
Pirsig says
"Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?"
"Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as ‘education.""
"You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law of gravity?"
"Sure."
"That’s absurd."
"You’ve heard of the importance of eye contact in the classroom? Every educationist emphasizes it. No educationist explains it."
So the way we experience the world is biological, the way we understand it is social, the way we put 2 and 2 together is intellectual. This is the framework for a human being. All these levels are acting together, all the time.
In Chapter 9 of Lila, there is an explanation through the MoQ lens of how a baby develops
A baby is a purely biological creature with raw experience:
“From the baby’s point of view, something, he knows not what, compels attention. This generalized something, Whitehead’s dim apprehension, is Dynamic Quality. ”
The exact quote is “a dim apprehension of he knows not what”
According to Pirsig, kids who are developmentally disabled are so due to a low ability or inability to have this dim apprehension. A normal baby will soon have enough of these raw experiences to see patterns, however
“It is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of sensations and boundaries and desires called an object to be able to reach for one.”
That’s also a good description of how the experience of Quality creates objects. After that the mother will guide the child to understand and categorize these objects. This is the basis for understanding and cognitive development and describes where Kant’s a priori comes:
“Elementary static distinctions between such entities as before and after and between like and unlike grow into enormously complex patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation as the mythos, the culture in which we live.”
In terms of ongoing psychological and spiritual development beyond those early years, you might look at that as cultivating an ability to see Quality. The Gumption Chautauqua is about avoiding psychological traps that, as Rowson said, make you lose your enthusiasm. Psychological development or health let’s say and enthusiasm for life are deeply entwined. If you lose your enthusiasm, you become stuck. If this lack of enthusiasm sticks around for too long, you will cease progressing so it can be a big deal.
Spiritual development is the same, because in metaphysics the practical and the spiritual follow the same path. In terms of the levels – the biological, social and intellectual, it’s where they all line up and work together – you could be able to be in that space between Static and Dynamic more rather than less points towards optimal psychological and spiritual development. And I’m going to quote from the end of the Gumption Chautauqua here:
The making of a painting or the fixing of a motorcycle isn’t separate from the rest of your existence. If you’re a sloppy thinker the six days of the week you aren’t working on your machine, what trap avoidances, what gimmicks, can make you all of a sudden sharp on the seventh? It all goes together.
But if you’re a sloppy thinker six days a week and you really try to be sharp on the seventh, then maybe the next six days aren’t going to be quite as sloppy as the preceding six. What I’m trying to come up with on these gumption traps I guess, is shortcuts to living right.
The real cycle you’re working on is a cycle called yourself. The machine that appears to be "out there" and the person that appears to be "in here" are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality or fall away from Quality together.
Rowson indicates in several ways that the heart of Pirsig’s philosophy is being in that space of seeing reality as it is, as it unfolds magically before you.
Which is another way of stating the opening of the Gumption Chautauqua:
“The gumption-filling process occurs when one is quiet long enough to see and hear and feel the real universe, not just one’s own stale opinions about it.”
But the way, one of my most viewed videos is a commentary on Rebel Wisdom’s comparing Petersons, Wilber’s and Pirsig’s maps…and it’s in a large part a response to Rebel Wisdom’s interview with Ken Wilber. Probably would revise it at this point since I much better understand, at least I think I do, the MoQ at this point. Still, it’s a video I’m proud of, which is not something I can say about all of them.
At about 8 minutes, Rowson says that Pirsig was ahead of his time. I agree, and I propose that the time is now. So I encourage anyone watching to jump on the train and let’s ride that track of Quality. (see chapter 24 of Zamm, the train pulls the boxcars of your knowledge the track of Quality)