[MD] Teaching ZMM

[Dan Glover]

Matt,

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Last year I had the opportunity to teach ZMM a couple times for Honors Freshmen Composition.  It was fun.  I have the opportunity to do so again, so I thought I'd ask the group if they have any suggestions for Essay Topic Questions.  It's a very old way of doing things, but I haven't thought of anything better.  (Not my metier.)  Here's the old set:
>
>
>
> 1.         What role
> does “care” play in the narrator’s attempt to heal two worlds?  How does it function at different levels of
> the narrative?
>
> 2.         What’s the
> relationship between the subject/object distinction and the classic/romantic
> distinction?
>
> 3.         What does
> the end of the novel proper (Ch. 32) mean for our understanding of the
> narrator?  Is it a happy ending?  Compare the final sentences to the epigraph.
>
> 4.         Discuss some
> central philosophical ideas being articulated in the context of the narrator’s
> relationship to either John or Chris.
>
> 5.         Is Plato a
> good guy or a bad guy?  Develop an
> account that accentuates the complexity of answering that question.
>
> 6.         What is the
> narrator’s attitude toward Phaedrus?  Is
> it consistent throughout, or does it change?
> What is the significance of that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Some of these were developed from the Guidebook.  Partly what prompts my question is the number of people who chose (2), and did miserable on it.  I mean, it didn't ruin their semester, but I realized in grading it that it was partly my fault.  This is not a philosophy class, so I do not develop lesson plans around philosophical angles and context.  Part of my instruction plan is immersion (i.e. "throwing you into the deep end of the pool"), but I've realized that as effective as Pirsig is in introducing the tools of abstract thinking on his own, these kids (18yrs) are just not ready for it on their own.
>
> What people did better at were questions that allowed them to talk about the story, esp. #1, #4, and #6.  However, I'm now tired of all these questions.  The second time I taught the class, I wrote an essay with them, during class (ZMM, Part 2-style).  I wrote this prompt, that I want to swap in:
>
>
>
>
> 7.          What are some of the environmental allegories
> used in the novel?  Explore at least two,
> developing the implications of them on the philosophical ideas of the
> narrator/Phaedrus.  Are there any
> relationships between the allegories?  Do
> they get in the way of each other?
>
>
>
>
>
> (We did mountains and rivers.  It was great.)
>
> So, what I'm asking is this:
>
> (1)  Any suggestions for new questions that balance story elements with abstract elements?

Dan:
One that sticks in my mind is the guy who welds the narrator's chain
guard and how he seemed discomfited by the compliment given after said
work was done. The abstract nature of a work of art comes into play,
how even the mundane can be imbued with the divine. What's more, in
the workaday world people are too often dismissive of labeling their
endeavors as works of art. Why?

It is not so much the work of art itself, perhaps, but rather the
feeling behind it... the experience of both the artist and the
surveyor. Remember how the narrator asks: Aren't you going to braze
it? No. Simple and to the point. Plains-speak. Someone unfamiliar with
the act of welding might not appreciate the work. But the narrator
considers himself a pretty good welder too. Until now. How does that
relate to the 'real' world?

> (2)  Any suggestions about tweaking the old ones?  Esp. #2, but also #4 (e.g., being more specific...?).

2.         What’s the
> relationship between the subject/object distinction and the classic/romantic
> distinction?

Dan:
The focus is too general. Break it down to its parts and what it means
to the students in particular. Consider the welding analogy... there
are two esthetics at work (and this could rightly be said for any
occupation): the unfamiliar and the familiar. Now, what is the
relationship between those who are classical thinkers and the
romantics?

They're both capable of doing the work yet they each must respond with
their own individual voice. Thus vocation (from the Latin vocare, or
voice) connects in two ways: the means to sanctify the familiar and
the individuality of imperfection.

How does the distinction between subject and object dissolve when one
is artfully engaged? Rather than forcibly disentwining subject and
object in order to peel back the veneer and see what's underneath, the
relationship vanishes with artful engagement. How does this pertain to
the choice of vocation, or voice, that all students face?

> 4.         Discuss some
> central philosophical ideas being articulated in the context of the narrator’s
> relationship to either John or Chris.

Dan:
It might be of value to view the problem from the perspective of the
relationship Chris had with the narrator as well as with Phaedrus.
John too. They both knew 'Phaedrus' before that personality was
eliminated by order of the court. In the Guidebook, Robert Pirsig
talked about how upset Chris was when he read ZMM and how he said it
wasn't like that at all. What aspects of the journey did the narrator
focus upon that made Chris feel that way?

I recall Mr. Pirsig telling (again in the Guidebook, I believe) about
how Chris would oftentimes work on his friend's cars and when they
offered him payment, he refused. How does that philosophy of working
for work's sake blend into his disappointment with how his
relationship with his father was portrayed in ZMM?

Hope this is of some small help,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com