Borgmann thinks that Pirsig realizes that there is a, "split between surface appearances and underlying forms", but he thinks that Pirsig sees it too generally. In other words, if I'm interpreting this correctly, technology itself isn't so much the problem, the problem is our attitude towards technology. Pirsig's argument for reform is too strong in the idea that his solution can be applied to all situations, and too weak in the idea that his solution only pertains to the way we see things, not in the way things are actually shaped. We don't question the underlying problems, we only see what's at the surface of the problem. He says that what Pirsig is recommending is," little more than a change of vision." I would have to agree with Borgmann, and I see now that I may have incorrectly judged his opinions based on the first half of the book.

I probably look at this stuff from a slightly different perspective than that of a more traditional student. I know firsthand what he means when he talks about being disengaged. When you're my age and your whole life has unexpectedly and forcibly changed, you find yourself in the unique position of looking back and realizing what you've missed by being disengaged, and what you want to change. I think part of the solution for me is finding the balance between technology and nature, and by trying to instill that search for balance for future generations through my children.