Binaries and Their Limitations

I think that when Pirsig splits the world into these binaries it limits one to only one or the other. One is hip or square. Romantic or classic. Reason or quality. It gives me a sense that the world can only be black and white and that it disregards all of the shades in between. I think that there is reason in quality and quality in reason. It doesn't seem reasonable to only pursue reason without also pursing quality and I think that not using any sort of reason to pursue quality would have a negative effect on that quality. While Pirsig's binaries are helpful to me in understanding contrasts that exist in thinking, I believe that this binaries are interconnected and by themselves, cannot really function.

In chapter 26, Pirsig identifies numerous grumption traps and one that relates to my idea of the interconnection that exists within these binaries is the "truth trap of yes-no logic" This truth trap provides only two options: yes or no, this or that, one or zero. Pirsig claims that there's a third option which he calls Mu which means "no thing." Rather than choosing yes or no, Mu chooses outside of those two options. It answers what cannot be answered by just yes or no. Pirsig claims, "Yes or no confirms or denies a hypothesis. Mu is the 'phenomenon' that inspires scientific theory in the first place!"

If I understand this correctly, dualistic thinking is usually thought by the serious man while capturing Mu is usually done by the rhetorical man. However, the binaries of a rhetoric man versus a serious man are a product of the grumption trap of dualistic thinking. I agree that there is a disharmony between these binaries (quality has a lot of different aspects of it than reason does), however, I don't think the solution is completely separating them into different categories. What if harmony exists in figuring out how to use the relationship between the two binaries  in a way that results in beauty? I think that one binary can have more weight than the other in producing this beauty, but I don't think that one binary can stand by itself without at all involving the other. For an example, if I am choosing to write rhetorically, one important aspect as a approach my Word document is the perception that I want from my audience. Writing to please one's audience is rhetorical in that I care about my work's quality and the quality of thought that it stirs within my audience. It is also a logical choice because if I am writing for an audience, it doesn't make sense to not think about them while I write. If I use reason to pursue quality, I think I would be more successful than only utilizing one of those binaries in my writing.

Pirsig is successful in that he provokes thought in his audience of how these binaries exist and their relationship with each other. His book has challenged me to think beyond dualistic thinking and has made me question why I write and what I am writing for, especially in terms of quality. I think, like what Kelly stated earlier, that quality is subjective. As writers, an essentiality in what makes us successful writers is finding out what our quality is to us and learning, through our experiences and who we are, why we believe in our subjective definitions of quality. I think that it is also important for our values of quality to always be challenged and improved. They should always be more of a working progress than a set in stone definition because experience changes us and how we perceive the world. Pirsig exemplifies this concept in his (to me, rather odd) old way of thinking that he labels Phaedrus and how questioning what he believed changed how he saw the world and himself. In relation to Chris (who I feel insanely bad for), the lesson of his relationship with Pirsig has taught me is to not miss out on experiences to question our values, but to let experience be an essential part in shaping our values. Pirsig missed out on so many father-son experiences because he was so wrapped up in his thoughts and his questioning of his thoughts. Since one cannot go back in time, past experience isn't redeemable. Food for thought :)