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.
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
