ŷ������

you are right probably.

Did you finish it?

It is based on real events in a real person's life.

What he says about the state of our society (and it's deep hitorical roots) is not mere posturing.

Here's another you probably won't like - The Master and His Emissary by Ian McGilchrist.

Yes, I did finish it, which is how I know that so many people claim to have read it who have not. I particularly enjoy testing this theory by describing scenes that are not in the book and asking people who have "read" this book to explain them to me.
Just because it is based on a real person's life does not make it worthwhile reading material. Postering? The only history contained in this book is that which one could gather from a few sophomore level philosophy classes and the statements made about our society are both vague and reactionary. As an example; "We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientist with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all..." This passage certainly has an appearance of containing knowledge, but doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny.
And, because I am not interested in advising you to read things you will not like, I would recommend to you 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary Zukav, which is a very charming, if somewhat outdated, observation of the philosophical possibilities opened up by the quantum sciences. The book is based on sound research and a thorough examination of historical precedent and I believe you would find it very enjoyable.

Oh what have I started here?

What concerned me about your review was the sheer vitriol of it.

I did start The Dancing Wu Li Masters once a long time ago. I didn't get very far because he seemed to be using Quantum Physics to support ideas that he simply *wanted* to believe in. As I say it was a long time ago. This is not the kind of thing that Pirsig does.

I do have my own issues with it but what makes ZAMM likable for me is precisely that it is contradictory and troubled. I would never recommend it as a text on Philosophy, nor as a straight forward story. It was rejected by 121 publishers before being accepted. If he had been aiming to create an intellectual con trick I think he would have researched his market and written something more palatable to commissioning editors.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the book but I do believe he was genuinely surprised by the cult which grew up around it.

Why would you be concerned about my review at all? I dislike this book and I think I have made that very clear.
Never in my review, nor in my responses, did I indicate that the author intended to scam readers. I merely suggested that the book is poorly written, inexpertly researched and over-rated. Your responses have not altered my view in any way. If anything your desire to defend not just the book, but the author, has only further convinced me that the praise this book receives is wholly unfounded.
In short; There are a lot of good books, but this is not one of them.

Ignore this review ... just another person who "doesn't know what this book is about" .... but presumes to pass sentence on it anyway. Ad hominem remarks about hippies and pseudo-intellectuals ... really? Grow up, Nora, stop being so judgmental and stop thinking outpourings of bile constitute a "book review".

Jerry, you're telling people to ignore my review because you personally don't like it and you think I'm the one who needs to 'grow up?' If my dislike of a book offends you, please feel free to meditate until your chakras are in balance at the wu shack nearest you. Despite what you may have learned in philosophy 101, being 'judgmental' is a necessary aspect of any book review. Anything else may simply be called a summary. Also, my occasional use of the terms 'hippie' and 'pseudo-intellectual' are both relevant and integral to my point. I dislike both hippies and pseudo-intellectuals, ergo I dislike books that appeal to them specifically.
So, Jerry, don't tell me what to do or think and I will try to extend you the same courtesy.

if you were an intellectual you would have spotted this as an homage to Plato, and that the idea of "quality" is in fact a Platonic form (or universal). If you're interested in learning proper criticism, I suggest you take up Kant's "Critique of Judgement," unless of course you think it is more hippie nonsense..

Anna Nicole wrote: "if you were an intellectual you would have spotted this as an homage to Plato, and that the idea of "quality" is in fact a Platonic form (or universal). If you're interested in learning proper crit..."

If I were an intellectual, then, I would be wrong. This book is not an homage to Plato except in the most general sense. As I said, I have read the book, and nowhere do I recall any allusions to The Republic, perhaps you can illuminate me? As for my ability to critique, it doesn't take very much critical ability to analyze a junior-high level new age philosophy book. I am personally not a fan of Kant, having read several of his works and drawn the conclusion that his stance on the 'noble lie' does not ethically sit well with me. Personally, I find Locke's position on the evolution and purpose of society more satisfying, although I sometimes question if Hobbes's dismal view of the human condition may be closer to the truth, especially when I read your comment. Should we discuss Hegel? The letters of Marx and Engels? I may still have the essay I wrote in third grade on Aristotle, if you would prefer to stick to that level.

you're crazy

and mean-spirited. not a great combination.

He specifically references the split between Plato and Aristotle near the end, firmly positioning Plato's ideas as superior, which I may or may not agree with, but to deny this as the central theme is dishonest and lazy.

What would you like to discuss? seems like you have a lot to get off your chest. Did something happen in the third grade?

a quick peruse of your profile has revealed your estimated age to be:

14

Anna Nicole wrote: "a quick peruse of your profile has revealed your estimated age to be:

14"

Yes, clearly I am 14 and have crippling emotional issues, or I would not be posting multiple weak personal attacks on a goodreads book review. It is clear that, having mentioned the third grade, I was traumatized by some unbearable incident which has made me incapable of enjoying hippie philosophy, just as it is clear that since you mentioned a 'chest' that you have had open heart surgery. It's a good thing that you are studying communications, because you clearly have no grasp of them.
Although I don't recall Pirsig discussing Plato, I'll take your word for it. That does not, however, constitute an homage. You may want to pick up a few courses in Literature, at which point you may be better equipped to use words.

hahaha nah

Anna Nicole wrote: "hahaha nah"
How clever! Thank you for resorting to schoolyard jibes and thereby proving my point that this book appeals only to people who are intellectually vacant. Good luck with your future of hanging out in Starbucks talking loudly about how smart you think you are. Don't worry, a 2.5 GPA in communications and philosophy will definitely open up myriad opportunities for success.

dude I'm living that future

Zora is an extremely angry person. I don't say this based on his review of Pirsig's book, but rather because he needs to resort to name calling and offensive insults against anyone who may have a different viewpoint:
"pseudo-intellectual (read: pompous scumbag) friends"

His actual review of the book is not at all insightful. It's vacuous and amounts to mostly self-congratulations. "look at me and how independent-thinking I am, since I slag a book that lots of people like."

I have read lots of negative reviewers that take the time to make a useful argument for their dislike. People don't have to agree but they also don't have to hate each other because they disagree. That's what Zora is all about. Give him and his reviews a pass.

I know it's really hard to grasp, but it's okay for someone to not like this book. My review is no more hateful than your bizarre, and frankly way off base assumptions about my character. However, I'll go out on a limb and guess that your over-reaction, like those before it, results from the arrow hitting too close to the mark. As I have said before, you are free to write your own review. Otherwise, take off you rotten hoser.

Oh man, Zora, I know that's an old feed, but I just wanted to let you know you are pretty awesome :)

Your problem with the book is that you care what everyone else thinks. YOU wanted to read it because it is popular. YOU wanted to tell people how cool it is. Then it convicted you as an imposter. A 1- star rating for it is, simply, not honest.

Zora, nice one! Loving your work 👍

You said exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!

People really come out of the woodwork to defend this book...I am with Zora...if I were to try to be generous to the book, I would simply say that it hasn't aged well. Maybe notions of "I just see things that no one else in our twisted society can understand" hit hard in the Beatnik era, but today they're worse than a cliché