LS Struan's final complaint


Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 02:57:12 +0100


The Squad,

O.K I concede that I am in entirely the wrong place. I assumed from the web
site that the Lila Squad was something that it is not. My mistake. I thank
you all for your insights some of which have been very useful (Hugo and Ken
in particular though not exclusively).

I think Bo has here summed up the general gulf in understanding and so as a
last hurrah before I withdraw back to 'reality':

----------------------------------------------
<If this is utter nonsense to you - well - there are those who find
<this very sensible because the logical steps following from this basic
<assertion seems to produce a better model than the so-called
<subject/object one. If it is at this early stage that your objections
<stem nothing that a "kind person" will say can "put you
<right".
-------------------------------------------------

Again you (collectively) are trying to push the subject/object metaphysics
at me as if that is what I adhere to. It is not and it is not what most
scientists and philosophers of modern times believe. I realise now that you
must cling to this fantasy for the MoQ to have any validity in your
collective eyes as it can survive only in oppositional terms and with a,'
worthy adversary', but it is simply a nonsense and it does you little credit
that you can't see past this. I understand also that you believe I adhere to
it without realising it, but this is simply not true either. I am fully
aware of my metaphysics and painfully aware of its limitations.

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

<Your cure-all "Emotivism" (a contraction of emotion and motive?) is
<in a way the primary thesis of Quality. Emotions are values and
<QUALITY IS REALITY : the only motivation. What about LOVE? No
<minor factor? But there are levels of value starting with matter - as
<you possibly know. Emotions are IMHO social value or
<"representation" as Hugo would say..

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

O.K, If emotivism is the primary thesis of quality then great. I was hoping
it wasn't as I'm not an emotivist and feel that such an approach has
fundamental flaws both conceptually and practically. It is not my 'cure
all.' On the contrary it is just what I didn't want to hear. This shows that
my point has been utterly lost. (possibly my fault for not being clear
enough).

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

<The first about emotivism I accept with the qualifications below. The
<sentence: " otherwise quality....etc is almost word for word Pirsig's
<description of the subject/object quandary and a transcription of his
<mock-anthroplogic refutation. Morals, value ..just
<subjective-what-you-like-stuff. Subjective is the negative SOM
<indicating what is not to trust, and your 'emotivism' is clearly
<synonymous with 'subjectivism'. However the chief Quality tenet is
<that the division is not between subject and object (mind/matter) so
<the accusation of .."what you subjectively feel" or its twin:
<'...only in your mind' doesn't carry weight in the Quality reality.
<If you don't accept - or understand - this conclusion ...okay
<no hard feelings, but why tell us that? We are already - uhm -
<'painfully' aware that 99.99 percent don't.

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

Firstly, it is your emotivism, not mine. It is not me trying to escape
subject/object metaphysics, it is you. I am already free, which is partly
why the MoQ is meaningless to me. You are turning a one mile journey into a
thousand mile epic, with blinkers on, unable to see the shortcuts.
Secondly, I understand the conclusion but think you fail to appreciate the
method by which you have arrived at it. I refuse to accept a conclusion that
is arrived at by suspect methodology. I would even go further than that and
put it to you that this is not your conclusion, it is in fact your premise.
(more later)

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

<Another weak spot is your "neutral morals" that Horse referred to. I
<can't see that you did little more than put up a smokescreen in trying
<to escape from that dead end, but it demonstrated your subject/object
<roots.

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

The point about neutral morals is completely misplaced. You can disagree
with my suggested methodology, but to twist my words into something else is
really quite foolish. I understand that I wasn't clear to Horse in the first
place, but having clarified my position I would be astonished if he didn't
accept my explanation as valid.

This next point is starting to become farcical. I do not have subject/object
roots.
Again you assume that anyone who disagrees with you has subject/object roots
and again you are utterly and irredeemably wrong. Even viewed historically,
the vast majority of scientists have seen mind as simply an extension of
matter and hence fail to draw a distinction, when applied to the last few
decades the rejection of this division is almost complete. The view that
secretly we are anonymous dualists is quite outrageous.

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

<Another point that made me doubtful of your grasp of the Quality
<idea was this paragraph in your reply to Andrew:
> 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.

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

On the contrary. It shows I know more than I first thought about what
Quality is all about. Quality is not the rejection of subjectivity 'per se'
it is the conclusion that mind is contained in static inorganic patterns
while matter is contained in static intellectual patterns, with the
reconciliation being that they can contain each other without contradiction.
This is a completely different thing to saying that "what you subjectively
feel," as a term, carries no meaning and this is what you attempt to do.
Quality merely blurs the boundaries, it does not dispose of personal
identity. The
doubtful grasp is yours. Whilst you have both hands firmly on the bells and
whistles, the core is tucked away so tightly you can't see past the pretty
colours and beautiful sounds.

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

<(PS. From today's post I see that you volunteer to elaborate,
<but it is superfluous, I've heard it exactly one billion times before.
<For centuries the SOM has had the privilege of being 'the obvious';
<demanding objectivity and heaping the burden of proof on other, but
<here at the LS we take the luxury of regarding the Quality as
<obvious. At least that the critics makes an effort to understand)

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

You hear from me what you want to hear and ignore what I say.

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

<Have another go at LILA and return when you know what it is about.

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

I will certainly have another go at Lila, it is a great work of fiction, but
confess that I never had much time for "peaceful literary
society-like groups," so perhaps it is best if I do withdraw and stop
wasting everyone's time.

Have another go at REALITY and return when you know what it is about. ;-)
<grin>

I give you and everyone my sincere best wishes. I admire your pioneering
spirit and quest for truth, the world has more quality because of it.

Struan.

I shall continue to watch with interest.

--
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 - 16:42:58 CEST