LS Re: The Lila Squad


Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:02:52 +0100


Thanks for all the replies chaps, I shall try and deal with them here.
Please please note that I mean to offend no-one. My ideas are put forcefully
in the interests of intellectual rigour and nothing else.

Magnus Wrote;
--------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxxxx
But earlier in your essay, you stated that: "It soon became clear that this
was simply emotivism in disguise". Two very contradictory statements.
The MoQ provides a connection between metaphysics and ethics. Not only a
connection, they are simply the same thing. You can't judge a metaphysics,
any metaphysics, through the eyes of another metaphysics, which I think
you're doing. For that, you would need a meta metaphysics.
xxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------

No they are not contradictory in the sense that I am not contradicting
myself. I
am pointing out the contradiction not indulging in it. It is not my
contradiction if the MoQ has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is
the mask, emotivism the face and all I have done is point this out.
Equally, I am not judging one metaphysics through the eyes of another, I am
(in this instance) judging it through the eyes of an elimination of
metaphysics so your objection is invalid.

------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxxxxx
Further on in your essay you argue that "modern scientific philosophy" have
abandoned dualist metaphysics and determinism. So, what is this "modern
scientific philosophy"? Does it explain modern physical observations
better than the MoQ?
xxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------

The simple answer to the first part of the question is quantum mechanics and
the second, yes.

But also;
Existentialism and logical positivism.

Yes. Although they do have their problems they are nowhere near as
intractable as the problems I have pointed out for the MoQ.

---------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx
You say that Pirsig completely misunderstands modern physics... To be
polite, let's just say that everything about modern physics supports the
MoQ.
xxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------

To be polite back, lets just say that it obviously doesn't. Well that was a
constructive dialogue wasn't it? Hmmm.........

N. Peat - 'The professor on the drums' - great drummer, great band.

-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

Over to Hugo;
xxxxxxxxxx
Welcome to the Squad, Struan!
What an entry, reminds me of my brother when he comes visiting - charging
the premises in a loving manner :-)
I am sorry to be brief in the following, I am pressed for time, but I
thought a quick answer was better than none.
xxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------

Nice one. I like it. There is nothing I enjoy more than a good debate with
intelligent people. I can be arrogant, opinionated and brutally honest, but
I would buy each one of you a drink at the bar and delight in your company.
Of course you may not want to reciprocate in kind. ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx
However, Struan, if you have some other grounding of ethics in stock, even
if only the inklings of a hope, please share it with us, we need all the
help we can get on this one.
xxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't think I am ignoring what you say in the former paragraphs, but
all that you say leads up to this. My expertise (?) and interest is in the
ethical dimension so most of what I say relates to that, but obviously they
are all inter-related and probably contingent.

If the MoQ is naturalistic then it falls to the naturalistic fallacy as
pointed out by G. Moore in his 'Principa Ethica' of 1903, namely that it is
fallacious to define good in terms of a natural object. As with all the
following, the authors can do a much better job of explanation than me and
so I will not bore you here by repetition.

The work of Isaiah Berlin is another 'hope,' again the primary source is
better than my ramblings so I shall refrain.

A. MacIntyre is probably the foremost ethicist of recent years and I
challenge anyone reasonable to read his works and still subscribe to the
MoQ. (Short History of Ethics, RKP, 1967 - After Virtue, Duckworth, 1981 -
Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Duckworth 1988)

Well you did ask. ;-)

---------------------------------------------------------------

And then Andrew;
xxxxxxxx
Struan, friend,
You asked us in a recent email to "point out why I've missed the point and
to put me right."
Gladly. Let me preface this by saying I've only read Lila 1 1/2 times and
have not looked back at the specific passages you cite, although I am
reading it again now, and will look at this book through the lens you
suggest and get back to you at a later date about that.
xxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------

I shall look forward to it. Although the word 'friend' has made me wonder
what's coming. ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxx
World legal, economic, and political structures already utilize Quality.
Quality, for me, isn't a type of religion or dogma that has proponents and
detractors. It is what guides the choice of an employer in selecting a new
hire from a pool of applicants. It is what institutions who give grants
(i.e. National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, IBM ,
etc.) use to guid their process. Quality is not new. it is not unique to
Pirsig, and he certainly can take little credit for its use. It is a term
Pirsig uses to describe what exists in natural processes.
xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you replace the word 'Quality' with 'emotivism' I will agree with you.
What is
needed is a differentiation between the two, otherwise quality simply
becomes
what you subjectively feel is good. As yet nobody has even come close to
resolving this, at least not to my knowledge. Again we see emotivism in
disguise.

----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx
Just because modern sci. philosophy has abandoned dualist metaphysics and
determinism does nto mean that contemporary society and traditoinal legal,
social, and cultural institutions have followed suit.
xxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------

I really don't see why this is relevant. There are people on this forum who
think that the U.S is an intellectually dominated society while the Middle
East is a social value dominated society and this is just sheer and utter
rubbish. Just because ignorance abounds, we do not have an excuse to be
bound to argue against it alone. If many people think 2+2 = 5 and you know
2+2 = 4
you don't argue against them, you argue against those who think 51+49 = 101
otherwise you spend all your time refuting the simplist of wrongs. Well,
maybe
you do argue against them, but you certainly don't ignore the last group by
saying, in effect,that we don't care what 49+51 equals, because most people
haven't got past 2+2. You MUST argue against the most probable reality
otherwise you might as well give up. (Not you personally you understand. I
should have used 'one' not 'you' ).

Thanks for the reference I will look into it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxx
I agree that Pirsig misunderstands this issue of reconciling killing
(murder) and evolution. I would submit to you that there are no moderate
schools of thought on this issue that are completely consistent.
xxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------

There are. Emotivism is the first example that springs to mind. (I should
point out that I am not a convinced emotivist - far from it - but emotivism
as espoused by the likes of A.J Ayer is totally consistent and eminently
moderate)

------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxxxx
I don't follow. How do you conclude that the ideas lost were at a higher
evolutionary level than the country? I dont see any way of knowing at what
evolutionary level their ideas were, apart from the observation that they
thought to get a gun and risk their lives to defend their families and
country. This seems to indicate the opposite of whta you state.
xxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad you don't follow. This is precisely my point. I don't follow
either. This is not my conclusion, as I pointed out to Magnus earlier. I am
merely pointing out the inconsistency of Pirsig's position, not trying to
posit my own. I am showing that this is inconsistent and so am pleased that
you agree. This applies to your next paragraph (not reproduced here) as
well. The contradiction is
not mine, I merely point it out.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with you here. It is YOU, and not "we", and most definitely not
I, who are looking at mish-mash. If you are going to give your
interpretation or opinion on this, express it as such, not as "Our"
opinion. You don't know what I'm looking at. If YOU are looking at a
mish-mash of nonsense, fine. But what I am looking at, right now, is the
words of a man (you) who is struggling to understand the words from another
man's (Pirsig) struggle to understand something that cannot be defined or
subject to conventional methods of analysis.
So please, use "we" only in a speculative or conditional sense (e.g. we can
see, or we may be looking). The way you use it here is not only
inaccurate, it puts words in my mouth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary. I maintain that WE are looking at a mish mash of nonsense.
That is what I meant and that is what I stand by. Whether you realise its
lack of validity or not is not remotely relevant. I'm not putting words in
your mouth at all, you can say what you like, but it remains nonsense. (As
you admit yourself -see below)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxx
There is no way to give rational credibility to something non-rational.
This is Pirsig's basic problem that he went insane trying to resolve (ZMM).
To try and resolve it in the complex, multi-variable field of ethics
confuses things further. It is a very difficult question.
I find it helpful to frame it thus: how do we give a social system a human
charateristic (like conscience or Quality) that cannot be defined? The
answer is, we can't. It is an impossibility. Quality is not, to me (and
again others, incl. Pirsig, may disagree), too useful for institutional
ethics. It is like aesthetics in the sense that it is personal and
individual. So the way around the impasse in my question is to educate and
develop individual conscience, to nurture our own perceptions of that
feeling or essence which Pirsig calls Quality, and apply them from the
bottom up, not from the top down. I believe this may be the source of some
of the problems you raise.
xxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The first sentence sums it up. This is not a rational position. It is
irrational and nonsensical. I seek a rational argument and you can not give
it. We are (at first sight) on two entirely different wavelengths. Yours
irrational, mine rational (by your own admission). But wait, you say that,
"that it is personal and individual." Pure emotivism from your own mouth
(fingers). If this is the case why not discard the metaphysics and make your
life a lot simpler. You are using reason to argue that your position is
unreasonable which strikes me as a very odd thing to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxxxxxxxx
Finally, don't tell me what is or isn't my concern in my search to
understand ethics. I WILL BE THE JUDGE OF THIS, not you or anybody else.
The minute you start telling people what is and isn't of their concern,
you're telling them how to think, and that's when all the trouble really
starts.
If you want to state your opinion, fine. If it challenges people to think
deeply about their personal convictions, even better. But in stating your
opinion, or an argument, state it as such; not as a self-evident fact.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I would never tell anybody how to think. For example, it is no concern of
yours whether I
am having lobster for supper tonight, but you are welcome to think about it.
The MoQ is irrelevant to anyone seeking an ethical framework and yet if you
want to think about it then that is fine by me. But this may be a cultural
thing. I am English/Scottish and the accepted practice in academia here is
to state what you believe to be correct, it being accepted that the reader
will realise that everything you write is your opinion, after all science is
the study of the most probable not of 'a priori' fact. If Einstein had
written, " I THINK E=MC2,' then most people over here would suggest the 'I
think' was superfluous or even tautologous. I don't know which country you
are from, but if your conventions are different to ours (and I've yet to
find any that are) then I hope I have cleared that up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Last but not least, Kevin:
xxxxxxxxxxx
On Emotivism
1. I confounded the definition of emotivism. I apoligize for my stupidity.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not stupidity at all. I was using it in the technical sense and you were
not. I apologise for assuming you were.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxx
On Ethics
2. I wasn't saying much on the ethics debate because (a.) I am trying to
reconcile it myself and (b.) I was debating Bodvar on it at the time and
did not want to repeat myself.
3. I have no ground rules for a ethics debate with MoQ except to say at
the end of a moral action we should be closer to Dynamic quality than
before the moral action. The way of determining that is still up in the
air. . . (with me anyway.)
xxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have homed in on ethics because if the MoQ is not about ethics then what
practical use is it? Lila was an 'inquiry into morals' after all and I fail
to see the point of all this unless we can apply it to practical situations.

Regarding the rest of your posting: I admire your honesty but come back to
my conviction that until you have an ethical framework, you having nothing
of substance whatsoever. I believe that this problem is of the utmost
importance and it must be answered if the MoQ is to be taken seriously,
which
I believe is what the squad wants.

Whatever some on this forum may think of academia - and I consider their
rejection of it to be little more than intellectual cowardice - you must be
able to show intelligent minds precisely why the MoQ is important and of
what practical use it can be to mankind. If the Squad cannot do this, then
it will inevitably lose
those members with integrity and become a slightly bizarre cult with
impossibly weird
beliefs and bitter advocates.

I hope this does not happen.

Struan

--
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