From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 02:23:27 BST
Hey MOQers:
I've extracted four of my favorite questions, along with Pirsig's answers,
and added some thoughts.
Q: What is the observer and its relation to the table in terms of Quality?
Pirsig: In the Dynamic world (i.e. world of the Buddhas) the observer and
table are not divided. In the static world (the world of everyday life)
the observer is a subject composed of social and intellectual levels. The
table is an object composed of inorganic and biological levels.
dmb adds:
Interesting that the orgainic and inorganic aspects of the observer are not
included. I suppose the static self is only social and intellectual because
a body can undergo electric shock "therapy" and remain largely unchanged,
but the mind, the observer, can be altered radically or even erased by it.
Q: If you kill the self then isn't this a quick return to the Dynamic and
therefore a moral action in Pirsig's MOQ?
Pirsig: For a materialist to 'kill the self' might mean to put a bullet
through one's head, and for that reason Buddhist nirvana was regarded by
some early commentators as a form of suicide. The Buddhist reference to the
killing of the self however refers to a destruction of the illusion of the
self that exists in the static, culturally derived patterns of ones
consciousness. Suzuki Roshi sometimes referred to "little self" and "big
self." When "little self" is killed "big self" takes over.
dmb adds:
As I understand it, the big self is Dynamic and so whn it takes over from
the little self, one is free in the Pirsigian sense. The little self, the
ego self, is far from being the central reality, and is, in reality, the
illusion that prevents freedom.
Q: How does the MOQ improve on James' pragmatism? How does this relate to
the Nazi Holocaust?
Pirsig: By avoiding the criticism of James that his pragmatism prostitutes
truth to the values of the market place. The MOQ says that the values of the
market place are a kind of quality but there is an intellectual level above
them that is morally superior. The Nazi's stifled intellectuality.
dmb says:
There is an intellectual level above the values of the marketplace. The
intellectual levle is morally superior to the values of the marketplace. Its
immoral to prostitute truth to the values of the marketplace. I just wanted
to repeat that a few times for Platt's sake.
Q: [Ant's] thesis suggests that the MOQ states that we should be moral
essentially for future generations' sake rather than being awarded an
afterlife or reincarnation. In this regard, what you would you say to
someone who said that they didn't care about future generations?
Pirsig: That he is immoral. However the MOQ does not state that the sake
of future generations is the only reason for moral activity or even the most
important one. MOQ morality, i.e., right dharma, is an end in itself. It
is sometimes divided in to the written dharma of laws and codes, and the
unwritten dharma of justice, conscience, fairness and good will.
dmb asks:
It seems that our concern for future generations is based on both kinds, but
I'm most fascinated by this idea of unwritten dharma. If anyone has some
ideas about it, I'd sure like to see them.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 02:25:18 BST