The Meaning of Lif
Now Playing: Bob Dylan - The Times They Are a-Changin'
Topic: Zenacious P
Rationality declares that the ultimate purpose in life is to continue living. But this is in itself defeatist and impossible. As Christians we have a hope of life hereafter and a command to value our lives as but tools for God. How does this reconcile reason and passion? How does Christianity get around reason? Is reason the foundation of life or is there something else which Pirsig has forgotten (or not mentioned at this point)? Read Hebrews 11:1 and allow it to comment on reason. Does the Godhead reside in reason as well, though? Is God more pleased by our triumphs of reason or of passion? Are those the only two ways? Think about it.

Romantic Comedies (4-6)
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: The Andy Milanokis Theme Song
Topic: Zenacious P
Classical or Romantic? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to live, or in the heart. There's a lot of meat in these chapters, hopefully you've read them slowly and carefully. Now that you've finished chapter 6 the whole "rhetorical scalpel" thing should make more sense. Does it? How does a high-lighter work as a rhetorical scalpel (Phaedrus' Knife)? Do you find yourself more Romantic or Classical? The aim of this class will be to bridge the gap. You will need to romantically appreciate the beauty and joy of literature, while being classically able to analyze said literature. So which one is going to be the challenge for you and how are you going to surmount it? Maybe Pirsig will give us some advice.

What's Best?
Now Playing: "Us" by regina Spektor
Topic: Zenacious P
In the first three chapters Pirsig subtly (and not so subtly) introduces us to his own philosophy. He discusses memory (blackbirds), perception (“frames”), quality (“what’s new” vs. “what’s best”), and technology (dripping faucets and motorcycle maintenance)—and that’s just the first chapter. He ends the first chapter with,
I disagree with them about cycle maintenance, but not because I am out of sympathy with their feelings about technology. I just think that their flight from and hatred of technology is self-defeating. 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. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha...which is to demean oneself. That is what I want to talk about in this Chautauqua.
I think in a way he’s right. If we can find God (not the Buddha, but Yaweh) in nature, and we can find Him in art (e.g. a poem like Paradise Lost, a sermon like “Sinner’s in the Hands of an Angry God”, or a painting like Rembrandt’s Return of the Prodigal), then why couldn’t we find his glory reflected in a motorcycle or a faucet. By engaging in technology we can proclaim the glory of the Creator and reflect the Imago Dei through our own acts of creation.
Yet, as we discussed today (Thursday), the prerequisite for any philosophical discussion—and remember, all language partakes in some kind of philosophical discussion just through the act of speaking—is a proper, Biblical anthropology. This is what’s missing in Pirsig’s gross assumptions of chapter two which lead him to prematurely terminate a motorcycle trip with Chris. Don’t worry solely about the object (the motorcycle), remember always to consider the subject (the rider).

There’re many ways one could respond to these chapters. You may engage in his discussion about whether the laws of science really exist; or on whether education is mass hypnosis. One might attempt to define “common sense,” “science,” “truth,” or “quality.” Still another route would be to engage in a discussion of how the constant motorcycle maintenance references are part of a greater metaphor (“the real motorcycle is yourself”) which deserves a lengthy dissection. Or you could just react to my post above. Have at it.