Function vs. Essence - What People Appreciate, And What Really Deserves Of Appreciation

Wow, this title sounds like I'm writing some kind of self help book.
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig writes about how in present day, people (or more fittingly, consumers) purchase and utilize things, both technological and not, thinking only about their function. They don't bother to go in depth to learn hot those things work, how to properly use them, or really thinking about their "essence" at all. But is it really all their fault?
Maybe, the essence of modern mass produced technology is not recognized or appreciated because -
it doesn't have any.
Technology is made to save time. People buy it to save time. Really, we are only using it because we think it will help us reach a future goal faster. We are rushing through time, a concept created by humans as much as any other technological invention is. As much as we appreciate technology on the surface, we appreciate time just as much - on the surface. Time is thrown around as if it is separate from the Quality we wish to be experiencing in life. We seek Quality as the result of function, but, as Pirsig says, Quality is the underlying base that anything worthwhile is built on. Quality comes before function, so how can function give quality? In a piece of technology with no essence, no Quality base, it becomes just another consumer-product steppingstone to the never ending search for quality in life.

An Open Letter To Parents

I could make this post into a refusal of the assignment. For lack of experience, or aversion to specificity, I could say I have no advice to give, no criticism to make, no praise to dole out.

But on second thought, that isn't completely true. What is true that I am content with how I have been made, shaped, raised, and brainwashed. It is true that I do not regret any formulation of my relationships with those who parented me, or any childhood experiences I have gone through. It is true that parenting is relative, ambiguous, and respective. I loathe shallow specifics, and avoid equally shallow generalities. "You should let your kids have candy twice a week." " You shouldn't use be negative towards your children." What does any of that mean? How does it even apply in all, if any, child-rearing situations? 

My point is this. As much as you can do to raise your child, you will not be the only one in control. My current self and contentedness with it is present because of school, media, books, friends and bums just as much as it is from my parents and the environment I grew up in. It is just as much because of the teenage girls who lived in my old apartment complex and snuck out at night to sleep around as it is because of my prodigy classmates. In the end, the child, though young, vulnerable and changeable chooses what to do with his experiences. He could just as much choose to rebel as get sucked into the parents' world. 

All I could ask of you now, parents, is to recognize it, and let it be. Then keep on truckin'.

Who is Phaedrus to Robert Pirsig?

        In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig explains that Phaedrus was a philosopher from Plato's time. One of the ancient, famously philosophical, revered geniuses whose mind mysteriously travels through thoughts and ideas that a normal person would not care to touch on in daily life. Basically enough, this name is given to Pirsig's former personality, an enigmatic English professor who somehow thought himself into a mental breakthrough (or breakdown) so huge and deep that he went insane and destroyed his personality, replacing it with a much simpler consciousness that has many scattered and vague memories of its previous self, but is nevertheless still a philosopher. 

       The name explains it all. Pirsig views his former personality as a deep thinker and philosopher, a mystery, and enigma that he is slowly uncovering, like an "archaeologist". Thought Phaedrus had shared this same body, Pirsig treats him as a completely different entity. One that he used to know, but now barely remembers. One that all his friends and his family remember, but whose disappearance he must keep hidden from them. 

       I won't say Pirsig doesn't want to know all about Phaedrus. He is curious. He is enamored with this genius philosopher, this scientist, this rhetoric professor. But he makes no haste to discover his past. He goes along with life. He doesn't bury himself and obsess himself with his former mind. He patiently learns of it from others. He is also content with the mind he has now. But then again, that's the point of Zen.

Civic Duty: All People Should...

I am currently not able to, nor do I believe I have the right to decide, what people should and should not do. Whether it be because of a lack of experience, a lack of imagination or my tolerant and forgiving nature, I don't think anyone is really obligated to do anything. Of course there are social rules like politeness, decency, and obeying the law, but American is a free country for a reason. People can basically (if not doing anything illegal) do anything they want to do. They have the right to possess any beliefs and any personality which they choose. The one thing that can really govern the citizens of this country, and in my opinion the world, is cause and effect. There are things that people cannot control; in fact, the only thing anyone truly has any control over is themselves. That is where this theory comes in. While theoretically one may act any way he wants do, consequences outside of his control will follow. Then, he is left with a choice; if these consequences are not desirable, he will most likely choose not to repeat his actions.

"People should be respectful", one might say. Sure, maybe, but not because of a general rule, but because of experience. A person who is constantly rude to people will eventually run into bad luck, and suffer from a broken jaw and a black eye, or whichever remedy the victim of his horrendous temperament chooses. While I myself do not believe in "teaching someone a lesson" or violence, I accept that reward and punishment is a common form of education through experience.

So basically, nobody really should do anything. But that is always at their own risk. And if you disagree with me,

YOU SHOULD BE MORE TOLERANT.

Is Poverty a Choice?

As I wrote in my journal and explained earlier in class, I define poverty as suffering. And suffering is relative. It is relative to the person who is experiencing it. It is relative to the perception of the person, and if the person does not perceive that he is impoverished, then he really isn't. One may be in circumstances that would make one suffer, but that another would enjoy. And while reading All Souls, I could see that Michael Patrick MacDonald and his family really did enjoy themselves.
And while suffering is only suffering if the person thinks it is, then it's a choice. If one chooses to think that they are poor, they will be poor. If one thinks that they are in the best place in the world, having the best time of their life, then at that moment they really are. And those are the workings of reality.

Malcolm X

I know we were supposed to comment on this book only about halfway through reading it. I missed the deadline. I'm sorry. I'm doing it now, the second half of the book late. I've read the whole thing. Of course, this would most likely make anything I have to say about him or his life fairly different than someone who had not yet read the whole book, for I have knowledge of what happened, but honestly I prefer that.

Brief introductions aside, there are a few things I can comment on. First of all, I would like to say that Malcolm X is human. And as all humans, he is susceptible to judgment, hate, indoctrination, hypocrisy, and a natural tendency to find something to have faith in. He judges women and hates white people (later only white Americans). He is indoctrinated by the Nation of Islam, while hypocritically blaming black people for becoming indoctrinated. He finds faith in Elijah Muhammad, and later refuses to believe that he had been betrayed by the man he himself worshiped. But what I loved most about this autobiography is that all these stages and phases that Malcolm X went through are shown and described, in detail, in sequence, written with the least amount of hindsight bias possible.

What I mean to say is, in the part where he writes about being a hustler in the streets, he IS the hustler in the street, with the beliefs and experiences of the hustler in the "narrator's" own voice, not letting the reader on about his later shift in ideals. In the part where he joins the Nation of Islam and puts his whole love and trust into Elijah Muhammad, he really does love and trust Elijah Muhammad. And, only later when he is speaking of the time he began to realize his blindness does he really write (or tell) as if he is only then coming to terms with reality.

Basically, it is written like a story. It CAN be spoiled. And for an autobiography, I think that is amazing.

King Still King?

I don't really know anyhting about Martin Luther King Jr. I don't know much about the civil rights movement, or even the time period it happened in. I don't encounter civil rights issues on a daily basis, given that I rarely listen to or watch the news, and am now taking a history class. However, I do know that King was AND STILL IS the voice of African Americans speaking up for their rights. We have a day to celebrate him, every year. A holiday where we actually get a day off. Civil rights writings and speakers constantly base their arguments and ideas off of those of Martin Luther King Jr. He is taught about to children as early as in first grade (which is when I first heard of him) and continuously throughout their education. He is portrayed as the foundation of the movement of the oppressed, both for African and non-African Americans. As I don't as often hear other names of civil rights leaders, I say yes, King is still king.