Appreciation of Function vs. Essence (bad Quality)

       In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, care is a function of Quality, so the more someone gets into the details, the essence of something in attempts to understand and work with it, the more Quality they are living/working with. Pirsig discusses the surface appreciation that people have for most things, an appreciation of their function versus their essence. This is termed exploitation without care, basically consumerism with deliberate, disrespectful ignorance. This is bad Quality, or perhaps just a lack of Quality.
        The book began with the author's exploration of some people's fear of technology, their resistance to knowing anything about it even as they relied on it very heavily. Towards the end of the book, he answers his question, leading into the conclusion of his exploration. Pirig states that technology is corrupted, tainted by the lack of care and Quality of work of the people creating it. The people making it follow rigid scientific structures and appreciate function over essence, working with little true care and creating products that are then consumed and perceived in the same way by the consumers. The appreciation of function versus essence leads to a "stylized" world because things created in this careless way are inherently ugly, and must therefore be "stylized." Modern American culture is  thoroughly "stylized."
         Reading these passages made me consider my own life and the material things that play a large part in it. My computer, my beads, books, pens, notebooks. I came to the conclusion that I truly respect, care for, and display good Quality in using very very few things, and see the value in most solely in how they serve me. Even my precious computer, the machine at which I've spent a solid half of my conscious life, is something I realized I appreciate in a surface manner, for if I truly respected it, I would maintain it way better and know way more about it. Just some thoughts, thanks for reading.

Phaedrus: Who is he?

         In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator begins with somewhat arcane references to Phaedrus, an Athenian philosopher in the time of Socrates. At first, I wondered if he meant to present and explore his own ideas in light of those of Phaedrus', but I came to see that most of the book details an extended parallel between the two men. The clues came slowly. Initially, the narrator (and "author," according to the book) wrote in terms of what Phaedrus might think of this and that, never dispelling the illusion that he was talking about Phaedrus, the philosopher of ancient history. Suddenly, the narration begins to make statements about what Phaedrus does/did think of the ideas of individuals way past his own time period (such as Kant.) At that point, I had to reconsider the Phaedrus that was being discussed, and it was easier to do that when the narrator gave background information on his life.
        The narrator was living a normal life, going to work and stagnating intellectually. One day after work, he went to a party and got very very drunk. The next morning, instead of waking up on his friend's couch as he had somewhat embarrassingly expected, he woke up in a mental hospital with broad-reaching amnesia about his past life. Weeks had passed since he had lost consciousness at that party. He experienced some sort of dissociative fugue, and after he lost his memory, he sort of began life anew. The narrator chooses to describe his past life as that of Phaedrus, and his ideas and decisions as belonging to the same. In essence, his exploration of Phaedrus in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is an exploration of himself as the man he was and is now and his pursuit of the "ghost of reason" throughout his life. A critical appraisal of the book that is written on the front cover calls it "the fabulous journey of a man in search for himself." That is a very apt description, and Phaedrus constitutes the embodiment of the narrator's search for himself and ultimate truth, as well as a means by which he searches.

An Open Letter to Parents (Not Your Own)

Dear parents everywhere,

         To start off, I do not believe for a second that I am qualified to give any kind of advice to parents. Being a parent is a test of faith, ability and patience like none other, and I know that, since I am not yet ready for parenthood, there is little that I can know about parenting. However, I have had personal experience with growing up and being influenced by my family, and I have witnessed varied interactions between my friends and their parents. All of these things have led me to certain conclusions. Teens, no matter how unruly, are not children in the sense that they cannot be reached; sense can be communicated to them. That is why parents should not become exasperated in interactions with their kid, but rather seek a way to reach them. Often, all kids want is a little respect, for which they are willing to give a great deal more in return.
          I know that one of the biggest obstacles to healthy parent-child relationships are rigid roles and behavioral patterns that people fall into. With my mother, I find myself in arguments where I am vehemently defending my position while inwardly agreeing with hers. Yet, my stubbornness combined with the fact that I can't communicate with her as openly as I want to keeps us fighting. That is often difficult to overcome from the position of a teen, so I would advise that parents make the effort to understand that their kid is not really set against them as the enemy, but simply feels the need to defend him/herself against unfair accusations, constant nagging, whatever it may be. When parents reach that understanding and make the effort to reach out to their kids, they'll be surprised how many gnarly situations will be instantly defused and how much respect they will get from their teenager.

I feel like I have more to say but I am rather lazy to write it...My last piece of advice to parents is to attempt and succeed at doing the hardest thing a parent can be asked to do: Recognize and accept that your 17-18 year old teen is a thinking, living, individual person that is soon to be materially independent and is already personally and intellectually independent from you. Give them the liberties that come associated with that recognition, and you will see your relationship blossom.

Civic Duty: All People Should...

For some, the question of civic duty would not be very difficult.
"Of course there are things EVERYONE needs to do! Paying taxes! Voting! Reporting suspicious activity!"
      I, however, find the concept of civic duty pretty complex. There are certain duties that citizens owe to the government that protects them and ensures a measure of their well-being, but defining civic duty as "ALL people should..." puts quite the spin on the question. As you may know, I am quite the crusader for the rights of individuals, and so I am generally opposed to a binding commitment to a set of actions that are loosely defined as "civic duties." So, we perform them. What does that make us? Good citizens? Virtuous human beings? Not really, but they are widely considered the basic guidelines for how a citizen should behave considering the duty that he owes to his government. My opinion is that civic duties, as defined by the State, should be performed insofar as they do not conflict with one's moral or ethical principles.
       I find it difficult to think of myself as governed, even though that is entirely naive and I am wholly governed as a citizen of the U.S. As a result of this mental quirk, I cannot easily agree when someone puts forth a list of things that I MUST do, seemingly by virtue of simply EXISTING. That is easier to conceive as an immigrant to the U.S, because it is, in a sense, an opportunity for me to be here rather than in Belarus, but I would definitely find exception with the idea of rigid civic duties that I MUST perform as a natural-born citizen of America. The civic duties that a government expects its citizens to perform must necessarily reflect its ideology and value system, and so with everything that the government declares and forces on the populace, the question must be: Is what I'm being told to do/believe what I REALLY want to do/ what I rationally believe? If the answer is yes, perform your civic duties. If you find fault with the instructions, don't follow them and write your own. Of course, this comes across as pretty childish, but I think that it really just puts a lot of stock in the individual; something that can rarely, if ever, be done because, unfortunately, people often tend towards idiocy.

I've been rambling (I'm sure it comes across) and I've pretty much exhausted my pool of ideas on this topic, so I guess I'm done. Thanks for reading if you did.

Is Poverty A Choice?

          Is poverty a choice? In the sense of this question, no. I do not think people choose to be poor. I believe that the power of circumstances is significant in affecting the lives of all individuals, and many have a harder lot than others for damn sure. However, in another sense, maybe poverty IS a choice. People generally never choose to be poor and definitely not to be born poor, but maybe they also fail to make the difficult choices necessary NOT to be poor. For example, I can almost promise you that there is food and shelter in different places in America that costs a fraction of what it does in an urban environment like Boston. And there are also cities, neighborhoods, and social circles in which all sorts of work pays a lot better than in others. Maybe I am young and deluded, but I am alluding to a complete BREAKAWAY being a potential solution to the stagnant, ever-present poverty of families like MacDonald's. Of course, it would be ridiculously difficult to make a move somewhere unfamiliar, maybe even life-threatening with eight or nine children, but my question to people who seem to be rotting in ghettos has always been: Why do you stay? Does it not seem like somewhere, somehow, life is better than this; safer than this?

          Maybe I lack an understanding of the community ties that keep people who are suffering inert in their unique kind of misery. Personally, having seen what I've seen in my life, if the best that I could possibly do somewhere was not nearly good enough to provide an adequate way of life for myself and my children, I'd leave and seek a new promised land, so to speak. For people in America with available transportation and no oppressive dictatorship to keep them boxed in (like the North Koreans,) taking a leap out of demoralizing poverty towards the unknown somewhere in the countryside or in another state does not seem all that bad in my mind. I appreciate the enormous courage, determination and perseverance that it takes to break with the familiar and face the unknown squarely, but what is worse than having your children constantly feel inferior to others and risk death in the wild streets? I decided to tackle this question from a rather unique perspective, and I hope you guys can appreciate it for what it is: an attempt to roll with a train of thought that took me in some interesting directions.

Malcolm X: Transformation

          During his time in prison, Malcolm X created a new man. A man who rose up out of the muck of ignorance and sleazy, parasitic living. A man who found, and was angered by, the fact that he was uneducated and could scarcely read and write. A man who, above all, wanted to lift the veil of NOT KNOWING and let the light of knowledge banish the darkness of evil misinformation. Malcolm X succeeded in recreating himself, and he was put in a unique position to do so. Not many that are as far gone as he from the guiding lights of truth and virtuous pursuit are able to come back, and not only save themselves, but return with a vengeance to educate others! His achievement was, and still remains, no small thing. Prison removed him from his life of crime and minimized the sorts of harmful distractions that might prevent a man from seeking education (the proverbial *****, money , weed.)
        It was interesting to note what initially motivated him to copy the dictionary, expand his vocabulary and learn the rules of grammar. He got MAD. He got mad at himself for being so inadequate that he could not write a cohesive letter in reply to Elijah Muhammad, who undoubtedly had a prose style of at least moderate eloquence. That anger was his motivation to do the painstaking work required to learn the fundamentals of formal language, and it was the same force that often powered him through his earlier, less noble ventures. I find that interesting because his life in the streets pitted him against others and the world, but he was able to use the same drive that enabled him to survive there in order to become an educated, righteous man and do right by his "black brothers."
          Although, to say that the words and actions of Malcolm X benefited only African-Americans is plain wrong. The considerations that his public appearances, directly and indirectly, bred in the minds of the whites of that time were undoubtedly indispensable to the civil rights movement and the gradual, upward social motion of the black man in America. As a man and a leader of men, Malcolm X accomplished a great deal. His case serves as an illustration of the twisted, unpredictable paths that individual lives often take, and the boundless capacity of people to change for the better over time. Life is a concourse of decisions, and as he found himself at his crossroads and chose well, so he was able to help others choose for themselves.

P.S. The girl sitting a seat away from me as I write this in Graphic Design is actually related to Malcolm X, because he was her grandfather's first cousin. The daughters that Malcolm had with Betty "X" remain in close contact with Dara's (the girl's) mother, who has the last name Little. I thought that was cool as HELL, thought I'd share.

King, still King?

           I do not claim to know very much about the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, but I know that the accomplishments of a man like Martin Luther King Jr. are worthy of celebration. To the question of "Is King still king?", I answer: YES. Any man who makes it his life's goal to advocate for the oppressed and downtrodden is worthy of note and rememberance, and having one day a year dedicated to his memory is the least we can do for one who has achieved so much. MLKJR and his supporters laid the groundwork for administrative and judicial equality in America, and although much work remains to be done towards the goal of ensuring civil rights to every man, woman and child, his early contributions have enabled us to make social progress. It is important to honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. not because the "racial question" has been put to rest and he contributed, but precisely because it has not been, and we must keep his vision in mind as we forge our way forward.
            Personally, I don't know the names of any modern civil rights leaders, so for me especially, MLKJR looms large when I consider the evolution of race relations in the U.S. For others more informed, different figures might come to mind. However, none can deny that King had a significant, positive impact on the treatment of blacks, and the beauty of his accomplishment lies in its influence on the mindset of America's future generations. Despite the seeming insignificance of an individual life, his passionate devotion to social betterment and the strength of his vision continue to shape America's direction decades after his physical death. The man had a dream, and he lived to fulfill it. The legacy left behind by an individual of such caliber and integrity does not easily fade...so I think that, for now, King is in no danger of being dethroned.