You can see Marsha I'm sure, that slipping in ... "but then it is ONLY [dmb's] opinion" ... is your part of perpetuating the warring you refer to?
With respect to the Ant quotations, there is an element of exposing - on the one hand / on the other hand - counter arguments in a thesis / dissertation, so we might not read strong agreement by Ant into his statement of the view of Pirsig's deficiencies ? (Ant can speak for himself on that. Matt has already pointed out tactical rhetorical reasons why Pirsig might not have wanted to emphasise that aspect in his writing at the time.) dmb's view there was interesting - I happen to believe there was something of a straw-man in this passage "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 critical of another's position is more or less the same as being a dick." But it is interesting that dmb states HIS attitude clearly. (Straw-man - because it really just side-steps a debate of what is "intellectual merit" - no-one would claim to be unreasonable, not even the overtly religious types. It's an open debate as to who's style of debate is the more mature and constructive - Matt's point - and mine.) Ian On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:42 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 cr > it >> 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. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
