[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[MarshaV]

Greetings,  

From Anthony's Ph.D. thesis:  

   "On the other hand, Pirsig's system remains a 'broad brush' as two (or more) judgements concerned with a particular moral dilemma can rely on criteria derived from the same evolutionary level.  Moreover, there _is_ considerable detail that Pirsig has overlooked from both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, through this can be provided, to some extent, by researching the philosophers (such as Northrop, Nagarjuna and William James) who influenced his work.  No doubt, in-depth comparisons between Pirsig and these philosophers would be beneficial in further clarifying the MoQ.  Other issues overlooked by Pirsig are the Taoist quietist concern with the environment; discrimination on the grounds of race, gender culture and disability; the damage caused by global capitalism and the Buddhis emphasis on compassion.

   "Pirsig's failure to explicitly mention Buddhist compassion (karuna) in ZMM or LILA is possibly his most serious oversight.  Compassion is defined by Rahula (1959, p.46) as representing universal... 'love, charity, kindness, tolerance, and such noble qualities on the emotional side' qualified by the following advice:  

        If one develops only the emotional neglecting the intellectual, one may become a 
        good-hearted fool; while to develop only the intellectual side neglecting the 
        emotional may turn one into a hard-hearted intellect without feeling for others. 
        Therefore, to be perfect one has to develop both equally. That is the aim of the 
        Buddhist way of life: in it wisdom and compassion are inseparably linked together. 
        (Rahula, 1959, p.46)  

   "As numerous world problems are caused or aggravated due to lack of genuine compassion, it appears highly plausible that an increased consideration of the later would enhance the MoQ.

        According to the _Buddha-dharma_... all the pain we bring to ourselves and others 
        --- the hatred, the warring, the grovelling, the manipulation --- is our own doing.  It 
        comes from our own hearts and minds, out of our own confusion.  Furthermore, if we 
        don't see exactly what the problem is, we're going to perpetuate it.  We're going to 
        teach our children our confusion, and we'll go on, generation after generation, doing 
        more of the same to ourselves and to each other. (Hagen, 1997, p.16)


     (McWatt, Anthony, 'A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality', pp. 214-215)

Marsha:
I agree with Anthony when he states "Pirsig's failure to explicitly mention Buddhist compassion (karuna) in ZMM or LILA is possibly his most serious oversight."; and so think it is a very valid topic.  Dmb's opinion is quite interesting, but then it is only his opinion.  imho 


Marsha 


On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:59 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> On point one, it seems pretty clear to me that empathy would be among the "strong biological emotions" that serve to produce "social cohesion". Brain researchers think that empathy begins very early so that even babies can be made to laugh or cry simply by seeing a face that's laughing or crying. This kind of empathy can even be found among chimpanzees, which are our primate cousins. Also, I'm very pleases to discover that Pirsig thinks "compassion", when opposed to intellectual quality, can result in foolishness or even evil. That particular point supports a complaint I've made many times. Various posters have come through here, usually religious types, who insist that their philosophical positions shouldn't be judged on their intellectual merits, as if it's cruel to hold them to such standards, as if their position deserves respect simply because that position is held by a person and people deserve respect. This silly, self-centered attitude says, in effect, that being crit
> ical of another's position is more or less the same as being a dick. These are also the types of people that tend to brag about their magnificent humility. Yea, it's certainly foolish and sometimes it's downright evil. As I see it, if one is upset or offended by such criticism, it's time to get a new hobby because this place is going to be upsetting and offensive to them  all the time. I tend to see such attitudes as a lack of maturity.
> 
> On point two, it seems to me that genuine compassion is never, ever used to protect one's self from criticism. The person who uses compassion to deflect criticism or paint the critic as cruel is a manipulative bullshitter, an emotional blackmailer. That's evil. Such a person will see any and every criticism as a personal attack and so they are simply playing a different game, one that has nothing to do with philosophy or truth or any kind of proper intellectual conversation. Such a person is just too childish to play by the rules. If this were my forum, such persons would be banned precisely because they are not capable of playing adult games like philosophy. 
> 
> On point three, it seems to me that Pirsig is being a bit too modest. He's pointing out where compassion can be seen in the narratives of his books and that's true enough but it also seems obvious to me that his books are motivated by some rather epic compassion. There is a sense in which his aim is to heal a sick culture, to improve the course of Western civilization. I know that sounds uncomfortably grandiose but we are talking about a metaphysical system that is attempting to balance the shallow artlessness of our tacky, consumer culture. The dominant religion is, for the most part, stupid and childish and people think that freedom is about what you get at the mall. It's a nightmare, no?Anybody who tries to correct this state of affairs is a hero, I think. And that kind of corrective work shows a very large circle of compassion. It speaks to the whole civilization, if not the whole globe. 




 
___