There are only a handful of books that have really changed the way I’ve looked at things; Jerzy Kosinski’s The Painted Bird, Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, Julian Jayne’s The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind, Ludwig von Mises' Human Action and Robert M. Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM). Pirsig’s book may be the most profound because it not only challenges, but re-labels our entire thought process, challenging many of our most deeply held values, in fact, it is subtitled, (An Inquiry Into Values).

Proof that I’m not alone in assessing the impact of ZAMM is the fact that it has remained in print for over a quarter century since it was first published in 1974. That’s quite an achievement for a book with such a clunky title - a book whose first publisher warned Pirsig not to expect “much more” than the $5,000 advance because, “works of this kind rarely sell in volume” and whose author readily states up front that it “has little to do with the study of Zen and isn’t all that accurate when it comes to motorcycle maintenance either.”

On the surface, ZAMM is a very simple story about the narrator’s cross-country trip on motorcycle with his emotionally troubled son, Chris and their technologically challenged neighbors, John and Sylvia Sutherland. Pirsig wraps a brilliant philosophical analysis of values, in a road story that pits Phaedrus (the narrator's former self) against his current, post-electroshock persona, his son and a the techno-phobic Sutherland's.

The story unfolds as a series of talks or Chautauquas, in which the narrator explores such topics as "Classical (emphasis on underlying function) Vs Romantic (emphasis on external form)" styles of thinking, "defining quality" and "insanity as a rejection of the accepted mythos (an idea previously explored by Thomas Szass).

Ultimately, Pirsig does nothing less than re-focus the nature and definition of QUALITY. What is it? How do we define the “present” when everything we’re conscious of has already happened, been processed and is already a part of the past?

Phaedrus looks at quality and notes, "we all know it when we see it, but how is it truly defined? What makes one thing of greater or less "quality" then another? He comes close to quantifying it in his "Church of Reason Lecture," which starts on page 142 of the original paperback release.

Pirsig breaks the world down into two outlooks, Classic (which focuses on the underlying function) and Romantic (which focuses on the outer-lying form). Aesthetics (the study of beauty) is form based or Romantic thinking, while mechanics (the study of how things work) is function based or Classical thinking. He uses this to explain why different people see the same world in very different ways. In this journey he shows the difference between the two as the difference between the narrator's Classical outlook and that of the Sutherland's Romantic one.

John and Sylvia both enjoy the look and feel of riding a motorcycle, but despise the mechanical chores of keeping it functioning at top proficiency. John is proud of his shiny, new and very expensive BMW motorcycle, but can't get into the daily maintenance of it. Phaedrus, on the other hand, is primarily attracted to and focused on the underlying form of the motorcycle. He is fascinated with how it works and what causes it to break down. Phaedrus is interested in the mechanics of the bike because he wants to minimize its weaknesses and maximize its effectiveness. The Sutherland's just want to ride, and to avoid at all costs the mechanics of the thing because that's what they're on vacation for - to get away from the mechanistic world.

This Classic/Romantic split is important today because it explains all of our contemporary socio-political schisms so well. Emotional thinking is always Romantic, while pragmatic or logical thinking is always Classical. Both sides see only one true way of looking at things and both overlook an important part of the puzzle of life.

It's why so many Leftists wear the "bleeding heart liberal" tag as a badge of honor. It feeds their emotionalism. Anything that sounds compassionate, feels good or "helps people," is, to their form based thinking, "good," and people who espouse self-reliance and individual responsibility are, in their view, "mean-spirited, Social Darwinists and well...evil" On the other hand, that's why economic Libertarians and social conservatives see "do-gooder liberals" as "grossly misguided dupes who care nothing for helping people help themselves and as well...evil."

It's why, Romantic thinkers rarely use facts. They support their positions on what "feels right," or "fair." It's also why, when emotional Leftists are confronted with facts they don't like, they interpret the data as "angry" or "argumentative." This also explains why Classical thinking Libertarians and Romantic thinking Leftists don't communicate. Classicists deal in pragmatics and facts, while Romantics deal in feelings and appearances.

What strict Libertarians fail to realize is that there are some burdens that we all must share. We do have a vested interest in maximizing opportunities for everyone. What Leftists fail to realize is that government assistance robs people, not only of their incentive to produce, but their dignity as well. The only real way to help people is to help them become more self-sufficient and free from those who seek to "help them." Government is NOT a tool of the people but an invention of the rich and powerful, designed to maintain order and to "keep everyone in his/her place." It has never been transformed from its original purpose, nor is there any evidence that it can be.

What Pirsig does, is synthesize both Classical and Romantic components into a sort of "unified field theory" of living. He offers a vision of a complete whole - a fusion of logic and emotion, form and function. An ideal whole that we're still very far from. An ideal that cost his narrator, Phaedrus, dearly.

Upon reaching Montana, the Sutherland’s split and head south, while the narrator and his son head on toward Bozeman, the College town in which the narrator’s former self (Phaedrus) taught. As they get closer to Bozeman, the pull of the narrator's former self (Phaedrus) grows stronger and he begins reliving some of the philosophical questions that had brought Phaedrus to the brink of emotional breakdown.

The entire book becomes a journey of self-discovery in which the reader comes along for a ride. As the narrator gets in touch with the questions and pursuits of his former life, he realizes that, in order to connect with his son, Chris, he must first confront his former self (Phaedrus). Read it for yourself, it’s truly a modern day masterpiece.



Recommended: Yes