• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Closereads
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Closereads
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

The Digested Read on ZAMM (and Other Works)

February 17, 2012 by Mark Linsenmayer 2 Comments

In looking for other podcasts on Pirsig, I ran across The Digested Read podcast by John Crace, which is sort of a literary humor thing, where Crace retells the gist of famous books using snarky oversimplifications.

In his episode on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, he's none too sympathetic towards Pirsig's philosophy, which he seems to see as a not-very-well-thought-out mishmash, but anyone who's listened to our episode will likely have gotten more out of it than that already, so let's not worry about that aspect.

I'll admit that Crace's comments about how jerky the narrator treats his son in the book set the tone for some of what I was saying on the podcast. One interesting tidbit: Pirsig goes on a bit about his adopted philosopher name "Phaedrus." His discussion of the name in the context of Plato's dialogues (you can read about that here) seemed uncontroversial, but he also mentions that it's the Greek word for wolf, as in "I'm a lone wolf philosopher, so I'll call myself Wolf." With a bit of Googling you can confirm Crace's claim that that's not the meaning of the Greek word (which actually means "bright"). Hardly a fatal flaw in the book, but a strange thing to fictionalize for dramatic effect on Pirsig's part.

Being new to the Digested Read podcast, I downloaded a few other episodes (they're all very very short; that's the point) to get a more general impression and determined:

1. If you're not familiar with the book, don't bother: you won't get the jokes, and you certainly won't learn anything about the book.
2. If you read the book at some distant point in the past (I chose some Joyce) and so remember basically what happened and the style but not much else, you also won't get much out of it.
3. If you are familiar with the book (I chose Tom Wolfe) and are just tuning for a laugh, well, it's a little funny, but not really worth bothering with.
4. If you're trying to get Crace's take on a book you're familiar with, looking at him as you would a reviewer (I chose Karen Armstrong), well, he does express some definite opinions. It is digested, after all, and they're not without insight, but they beg for argument, which of course, you can't give. (He writes off her entire account of the history of religion as irrelevant to arguing for God, which willfully misses her point; I've written some about that book here.) Since he was nice enough to give the text in his post, here's an excerpt:

Our ancestors, who were obviously right, would have been surprised by the crude empiricism that reduces faith to fundamentalism or atheism. I have no intention of rubbishing anyone's beliefs, so help me God, but Dawkins's critique of God is unbelievably shallow. God is transcendent, clever clogs. So we obviously can't understand him. Duh!

I'm going to spend the next 250 pages on a quick trawl of comparative religion from the pre-modern to the present day. It won't help make the case for God, but it will make me look clever and keep the publishers happy, so let's hope no one notices!

The desire to explain the unknowable has always been with us and the most cursory glance at the cave paintings at Lascaux makes it clear these early Frenchies didn't intend us to take their drawings literally. Their representations of God are symbolic; their religion a therapy, a sublimation of the self. Something that fat bastard Hitchens should think about.

Much the same is true of the Bible. Astonishingly, the Eden story is not a historical account, nor is everything else in the Bible true. The Deuteronomists were quick to shift the goalposts of the meaning of the Divine when problems of interpretation and meaning were revealed. So should we be. Rationalism is not antagonistic to religion. Baby Jesus didn't want us to believe in his divinity. That is a misrepresentation of the Greek pistis. He wanted everyone to give God their best shot and have a singalong Kumbaya.

In sum, it may be worth the 5 minute listening time for select books that you want to joke about, but probably not one minute more.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts

Comments

  1. David Buchanan says

    February 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    In the introduction for the 25th anniversary edition of ZAMM (1999) Pirsig talks about two mistakes, a minor error and a big one. The big one is addressed by a long explanation about his use of the “unreliable narrator” and the minor error concerns the mistaken meaning of the name “Phaedrus”. Plato’s dialogue did have a wolf in it, Pirsig explains…

    “…But the character whom Plato likened to a wolf was not Phaedrus but Lycias, whose name is similar to the Greek lykos that does mean ‘wolf’. As readers have pointed out to me many times,” Pirsig says, “Phaedrus actually means ‘brilliant’ or ‘radiant’. I was lucky. It could just as easily have meant something much worse.”

    Oh, yea, Considering the strange customs that prevailed among ancient Greek philosophers and their young students, it could have been much, much, much worse. It’s one of the more erotic dialogues and it’s pretty clear that Socrates is flirting his philosophical heart out and generally showing off for his young interlocutor. Oh yea, the meaning could’ve been much worse than “shining one”.

    Reply
  2. pirsigfan says

    February 18, 2012 at 6:42 am

    ‘Pearls before Crace’

    At least he links to this fantastically informative bio of P:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/nov/19/fiction?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Paul Hossfield on Ep. 326: Guest Michael Tomasello on the Evolution of Agency (Part One)
  • Paul on Ep. 326: Guest Michael Tomasello on the Evolution of Agency (Part One)
  • Frank Levi on Ep. 326: Guest Michael Tomasello on the Evolution of Agency (Part One)
  • Paul on Ep. 326: Guest Michael Tomasello on the Evolution of Agency (Part One)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Lacan’s Ontology

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

PEL Citizens have access to all podcast episodes, free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Closereads
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in