Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 04:43:37 +0100
This is my response to Kevin Sanchez who kindly saw fit to reply to my
previous essay.
Struan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Sanchez <wisdomÉworld-net.net>
To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqdÉmail.hkg.com>
Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 14:15
Subject: LS Re: The Lila Squad
>Dear Struan Hellier,
>
> In response to your mini-essay I must say you are wrong, but in a right
>sort of way. All in all, you have some points which need to be used to
>question MoQ, but not reject it.
>Four points:
>
>1. On Emotivism
> Everything is emotivism. Yet it is not a criterion for deciding the
>veracity of a claim (MoQ included.) Don't accuse Pirsig for having
>emotional motivation to say something truthful . . . just argue that what
>he says is false.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Firstly everything is plainly not emotivism (in the philosophical sense)
unless you are a convinced emotivist and if you are then what possible use
can you have for the MoQ? The MoQ is setting itself up as something
different and this is why it is quite proper for me to point out the
underlying morality of Pirsig's position. Under an emotivist framework I
could quite rightly state that inorganic matter has a right to dominate
humankind because I feel that this is the moral order of things. The only
way you can argue that I am wrong is to forward a different, non-emotivist
framework which you can show works better. This is precisely what the MoQ
seeks to do and precisely where it fails to convince.
Emotivism is BY DEFINITION the dismissal of metaphysics from the field of
ethics and it seems quite extraordinary that you should claim that
everything is emotivism. If you really believe that then how can you forward
any metaphysics at all, let alone the MoQ. I really don't know what else to
say to that point. It is truly bizarre.
------------------------------------------------------------
>2. On Determinism
> A. Even though determinism has been discarded, no one knows why. The
>Uncertainty Principle left the science and philosophy worlds metaphysically
>hanging. We know the facts: we cannot determine the path of an electron.
>Yet, the question of what that means to metaphysics was left unanswered.
>Quality gives us the alternative paradigm needed (as you probably already
>have read enough of to understand.)
> B. MoQ is more set against the subject-object metaphysics than
>determinism.
> C. Not everyone has caught up with the new age of uncertainty (eg.
>Christians) Don't blame Pirsig for beating what you think is a dead horse
>when others think the horse is still running the plains created by God.
> D. Neo-determinism still has grounds for resurrection. Perhaps things are
>uncertain only because we are not precise enough to discover them. And if
>we live in Newton's world, and Newton's laws still work, perhaps we are
>still governed by Newton's determinism. Besides, uncertainty does not
>necessarily mean free will.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. Lots of people would claim to know why. Because it is a false
supposition. What else do you need? If anything, this knowledge has
reconciled many of the problems between science and religion, especially in
the field of ethics.
B. It is clearly set against both.
C. The point of science and philosophy is surely to posit the most probable
hypothesis. If I were to argue that the world is supported on the back of a
turtle and justify it by saying that it is no less preposterous than the
prevailing theory that the world is hanging by huge invisible threads, you
would quite rightly point out that while this may be the case it is hardly
going to influence anyone who knows what they are talking about and that I
can't expect to be taken seriously. This is precisely what Pirsig does when
he talks about chemistry professors near the end of chapter 12 in Lila and
he surely cannot be expected to be taken seriously if he wants to describe a
new metaphysics. Your comment about Christians may apply to the ones you
know, but I know many who have caught up with this new age and one in
particular who is involved in pushing the barriers further as an astronomy
research fellow.
D. There is no real difference between the two positions here quoted except
in some 'a priori' sense. One might just as well postulate that my cat
created Jupiter, though you are right that uncertainty does not necessarily
mean free will. I would add that determinism does not pre-suppose a lack of
free will either.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>3. On Ethics
> A. Ethics is obviously an evolving debate in the Lila Squad. (Read my
>latest response to Bodvar to get a more comprehendsive analysis) Your like
>the person who catches a person chaning their mind and says "Everything you
>say is wrong!" Ethics has always been a difficult subject for philosopher
>to tred with the roaring debate between modernity and post-modernity in the
>background. MoQ is a work in progress, so let it progress . . . don't pull
>the chord just yet.
> B. MoQ has given us a new paradigm to discuss ethics. An evolutionary
>paradigm moving toawrds Dynamic quality and measured with static quality.
>It is the terminology needed to discuss the new metaphysics of the age. MoQ
>is a paradigm shift and, even though the landscape has not change much, the
>lens through which we view that landscape has changed dramatically. Every
>time you put on a new pair of glasses you must reexamine everything known.
>That is what Lila did (and the Lila Squad is still doing) with the superior
>lens of quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon?
A nice PR speel (?) but you aren't saying anything substantial beyond the
statement that ethics is a difficult subject and you think you have found a
way forward. Prove it.
Your discussions on ethics are futile unless you can lay out some ground
rules with which to approach them. It is simply not good enough to decide
that Ghandi was better than Hitler then proceed desperately to seek (and
fail to find) a way in which the MoQ can be forced to concur. The only
possible course which sticks within the bounds of reason, is to start from a
neutral morality and show how the MoQ forces you to take one position or the
other. Your process is equivalent to taking the sum 2+2 = 5 and realising
that it doesn't add up, you conclude that the answer must be 5 (i.e. Ghandi
is better than Hitler) because that is how you feel about it, so you adjust
the 2+2 until it becomes 2.5+2.5 = 5 and 'hey presto' the MoQ works again.
Again your ethics are emotive and as such deny the MoQ before you even
start.
Lila was after all an inquiry into morals. If it had been an inquiry into
emotivism Pirsig could have chucked out the metaphysics and saved a lot of
effort.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>4. On Pirsig
> A. MoQ is bigger than Pirsig. Although he made the original revolution, he
>is not the god of quuality and he is bound to make mistakes like all us
>mortals.
> B. I believe you have caught Pirsig in a contradiction, but I will let him
>defend himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Fine with me. I only care for the argument, not the personality.
B. I believe so too, but I actually think that this is a fundamental flaw
which anyone who supports the MoQ needs to be able to reconcile. I hope
someone can.
Regards
Struan Hellier.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST