Final Post

I dont think that ego based goals are ulitimatly destructive. I think that having an ego based goal can be extremely motivating if you are trying to overcome a physical challenge or are in a sports competition. I think that the narrarator thinks its destructive because when he's climbing the mountain he is doing it as a chance to reflect and think about all the things he thinks about on his motorcycle and the things he thinks about Phaedrus. Therefore rushing and trying to reach the top of the mountain first wouldnt be beneficial. However if you were having a rock climbing competition then having an ego based goal would be a good thing becuase it would help show others that you are the best and can reach the top of the mountain first.

In my personal life I dont have an ego goal when it comes to applying to college. I am open to almost any college from anywhere around the US thats has my major along with other opportunities incase I decide to change my major. When I apply to colleges I dont try to apply to the best and well known colleges so that people can think that I the smartest, I am more interested in my own personal gain than the oppinion of others. For my futures I have a more ego based goal than before because I want to be the most successful and make the most money. As a response to the narrator I would tell him that an ego based goal isnt completely destructive and can be a major motivating factor especially when your in a sports competetion and want to be the best you can be.

final post

I agree with the narrator when he states that ego-climbers are self destructive. They only want to do things that will make them look good. This stops them from doing things that they might otherwise love. For example, if an ego-climber is good at rock climbing, they will only do that. They won’t try out another sport like soccer because if they are bad at it, they will look bad. This stops ego-climbers from trying out new things that they could potentially be good at. However, I don’t think that setting goals and motivating yourself is a bad thing. It is good to set goals for the future, as long as they are not too binding. It’s good to have a general idea of what you want to do later in life for example, but you should be open to change. When people get their hearts too set on an idea, especially at a young age, that’s when you get into trouble. If as a child you had your heart set on going to Harvard and then didn’t get in, you could be devastated. It’s good to apply to Harvard and show interest, but you should have back up ideas and be open to change. Phaedrus did what he wanted to do without caring what other people would think. This got him into trouble because it challenged the ideas of ego-climbers goals and views.
I don’t think I have much of an ego goal about college. Of course, I want to go to college, but I’m not too set on one particular school. I am looking at many different schools and keeping my options open. I don’t think it matters too much about the big names of colleges as long as I find a place where I will get what I want out of college. I also don’t yet know what I want to do with my future. I would personally respond to the narrator that it is important to have personal goals for the short and long term, as long as they are flexible and you don’t get too heartbroken if they aren’t fully realized.

Final Post

The narrator's discrimination against ego leads us into new territory. I have a poster in my room that simply states "life is a journey, enjoy it." I think this statement best captures how I feel. If you lose yourself in your own ego trying to accomplish something, admirable though it may be, you lose sight of whats important. What is the point of looking back at what you accomplished if you can't say "I had fun doing that"? Well, maybe you're one of those people who will say they did have fun. This then goes along with Pirsig's point that an ego-climber will lie to protect their image. They will never admit it, but no one ever enjoys thinking and looking towards the future because it distracts from the present. I think the narrator believes it because of his relationship with Phaedrus. He notes hoe he attempts a pilgrimage, but doesn't make it to the mountain in time. Not because he lacked the physical strength but because he was doing it for the wrong reasons. Phaedrus was one of the largest ego-climbers in the novel. Even in college, he looks to change the system to fulfill how he thinks it should be run. Meanwhile, his students are learning or are they? Phaedrus fails to see because of his farsightedness.
Having said everything I had, I do have a goal of settling down after college. It is an unbelievably stressful process in choosing the size, location, mascot, student body, etc. I take everything seriously when it comes to college but I do my best to live in the present. I try to live one day at a time and have a very "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" mentality. However, for getting into college thats just not realistic. One has to consider grades and the whole application process which does require some analyzing in advance. So to the narrator I would say that the advice is sound, but is difficult to honor.

Final Post

The narrator in ZAMM argues against "ego goals" for many reasons. For one, he argues that because of an ego goal, one might miss "a beautiful passage of sunlight through the trees". I take this to mean that ego goals make one close-minded. If one ultimately sets their goal as "getting into college", they will not look at any other possible option in their life. He argues that ego goals make you focused on the future, what's ahead on the trail, and not what you are walking on at that moment. At first glance at this idea, I disagreed with it. Goals are what keep me going. I do my work to get that "A" to get into college, to get a degree, etc. However, it was the idea of "missing a beautiful passage of sunlight" that turned me around. At what point does the goal chasing stop? I now agree with Pirsig, that it is important to not simply live in the future. To enjoy life, to truly get something out of it, we must learn to appreciate what is in front of us now, not what is going to be in front of us later. This is related to Phaedrus because Phaedrus consistently did what pleased him, and this got him into trouble in an ego-goal-centric world.

For me, I have attempted to base my high school course schedule around what interests me. In a number of cases, this has led me to AP/IB/Honors courses. In terms of choosing classes, I try to avoid simply picking something "because it looks good." However, I do fall into a pattern of doing work for a grade and nothing else when I am bored by something, like Math. To the narrator, I would say that I do not deliberately ignore the trail, but it does happen. But when I go to college, and I have even more freedom over my classes, I know I will take a long, hard, look at a class (as well as who teaches it) before I sign up. I don't want to miss that beautiful passage of sunlight.

Final Post

I sort of agree with the narrator when he says that ego-climbers are eventually destructive. They do things to try and prove something which doesn't allow them to actually enjoy what they are doing. But the author also says that "when you try to climb a mountain to prove how big you are, you almost never make it" (pg189) I don't think this part is necessarily true because some people just need goals to accomplish something and i their goal is to prove how big they are then why is that bad. He says that it leads to endless times where you have to prove yourself and nothing gets fulfilled. I'm not really sure if I think that part is true, but I do believe that some people need goals to get something done and that its not a bad thing to be a little bit of an ego-climber, as long as you try to enjoy your surroundings while climbing that mountain. Also the few times I have climbed mountains, I was definitely and ego-climber. I always pictured myself somewhere else and wanted to know how much longer and only climbed to prove that I could. But maybe that is why I hate climbing mountains and going hiking and stuff, because I am an ego-climber and the few experiences I had were fine but not incredible. I think the narrator believes all this because he believes that you should experience your surroundings and enjoy them as much as possible. For example in the beginning of the book when he talked about how he liked motorcycles better then cars because he was a part of the environment, not watching it through a glass window. The narrator definitely gets his strong opinions from Phaedrus. Phaedrus was always the one to say what he wanted even if nobody liked it (for example the whole quality argument) He did things his own way and passed on some of this spunk to the narrator.


I think the ego goal of going to college is annoying. Although it is now the social norm to do this, I really don't like the fact that everything we do has to look good for colleges and we cant get one C without freaking out cause we arent going to get into the college we want. We should be able to enjoy high school, like enjoying the climb of the mountain. But instead we are constantly stressed and just praying that the top of the mountain comes sooner. We dream and talk about other places because we just do not want to be in school. This is what society has done to us. Made us all ego-climbers when it comes to college. We should be able to enjoy the ride but instead we are scared that we aren't going to succeed in the future.

Final Post: ZAMM and "Ego-Climbing

At the end of Chapter 17 in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator comments that ego goals are a kind of motivation that is "ultimately destructive" because "any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster" (p. 189 pink). Even more, he later says that "when an ego-climber has an image of himself to protect he naturally lies to protect this image" (p. 197 pink).

For the first 1/2 of your response, answer the following: Do you agree or not, and why? Briefly explain why you think the narrator believes this. Is his strong opinion related to Phaedrus in any way?

For the second 1/2 of your response, answer the following: What about you and your ego goal of going to college and making a future for yourself? How would you personally respond to the narrator.

Developed responses to both sets of questions are required for full points!

RESPONSES DUE BY THE START OF CLASS ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8TH.

POSTING FOR QUESTION #7 HAS ENDED / GROUP COMMENT BELOW

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 7 (QUESTIONS ON ROMANTIC/CLASSICAL UNDERSTANDING) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!

THANKS,

Mr. B

My response to the group:

I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:

1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. That classical and romantic approaches to understanding were indeed irreconcilable, suggesting that they don’t compliment each other.

Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding yet you also say both understandings go together about as well as oil and water. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:

Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?

a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?

Another thing I’d like for you to consider:

Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?

Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?

In the 60s, we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.

Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…

Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.

But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"

Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.

The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.

But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.

To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).

To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.