[MD] An Introduction to Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality

[MarshaV]

At 02:24 PM 5/27/2009, you wrote:

>Marsha quoted from Dr. McWatt's textbook, "An Introduction to Robert 
>Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality":
> >From 5.8.0. Differences Between the MOQ and Eastern Philosophy:
>
>"Despite keeping within Eastern understanding (by using Dynamic 
>Quality) to incorporate the theory of evolution, Pirsig discards any 
>notion of reincarnation or rebirth in the MOQ.  This is probably due 
>to his avoidance of supernatural explanations wherever possible.
>
>"For scientists, the mind of the Buddha and the Mind of God are 
>usually the same, even though the Buddha was an atheist.  I think it 
>is extremely important to emphasize that the MOQ is pure 
>empiricism.  There is nothing supernatural in it."    (Pirsig, 2000e)
>
>Instead of trying to achieve a better situation in your next life, 
>the primary moral imperative in Pirsig's system is the effect your 
>behavior will have on your descendants.  This is probably the widest 
>departure of the MOQ from the Indo-Chinese tradition."
>
>
>dmb says:Thanks, Marsha & Ant.
>If I'm reading this right, making the switch from re-incarnation to 
>one's descendants removes supernaturalism from the picture but 
>retains a moral stance about future lives. The moral imperative is 
>still directed beyond the present but it remains earthbound. Putting 
>this moral stance within the context of the theory of evolution, I 
>think, alters the way we think about the nature of that process. The 
>aim isn't just a matter of continued survival but a matter of 
>assuming some responsibility for ensuring a better future. There is 
>a dimension of betterness that is uniquely Pirsigian, I think, but 
>most Pragmatist emphasize this idea.
>"MELIORISM: noun, Philosophy, the belief that the world can be made 
>better by human effort, from Latin, melior = 'better' + ISM."
>There are several commonly known phrases that suggest we're not very 
>moral in this respect; "global warming", "peak oil", "nuclear war", 
>"second-coming" and "strip malls".
>I mean, this moral stance is not about the fate of your own soul or 
>even the well-being of your own great, great, great, great, great, 
>grandchildren. This is an unselfish imperative, no? Do unto your 
>descendants seven generations from now as you would have your 
>ancestors from seven generations ago do unto you. Okay, that's a 
>pretty clumsy sentence but you get the picture.
>

Hi Dave,

I was really quite surprised, but later figured it was an aspect of 
evolution, and hoped it wasn't for kin (ZAMM).  I love the idea of 
considering the seventh generation.  That is using great 
intelligence.  -  The statement also made me wonder how I think/feel 
about kin and descendents, and how my attitude has changed.  When I 
was mothering, I would say my world was my children.  Now that I am 
beyond the direct responsibility, I look back at the experience and 
see it has changed into the world as all children, all mothers and 
all children.  If I think about Iraq and Afghanistan, I think about 
the mothers and their children.  It's very painful.  -  I like your 
unselfish imperative.


Marsha






.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.