LS A Rubber Mallet


Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:52:28 +0100


Hi Squad,

Thanks to those who have sent e-mails to me. I appreciate the words
contained therein.

Donald was right in his "Bells and Whistles" posting and my
reluctance to posit my own position within this forum was motivated in part
by my
desire to maintain the position he outlines, and thus (can I blame my
relative youth?) I betrayed my own convictions. Thank you for helping me see
this Donald and my apologies to all.

Being misunderstood I can accept, but being misunderstood and misrepresented
seems indicative of a deeper problem. If the general consensus coincides
with the view of Bodvar that on this
forum Quality must be taken as the 'obvious' and is therefore, by extension,
(mine not his),
the 'God' of the Lila Squad then, like the agnostic who stands up in Church
and says, "I don't accept your God," I am in the wrong place and I can
understand the animosity and peoples erection of oppositional boundaries in
order to maintain group identity. Society is desperate to stifle new ideas,
on this much we agree. If this is the case I apologise for the intrusion and
perhaps those who want to continue a debate without the closed ideology will
recommend to me that we do so in another, more suitable forum. It seems to
me that any 'handbook on reality' is doomed to failure and anyone who
adheres to a hierarchical system of reality will undoubtedly place
themselves on top (apart from their God of course). The MoQ is fundamentally
anthropocentric and so the dangers are compounded.

Bodvar asked some questions and I failed to respond reasonably so I will do
so now.

------------------------------------------------
So for an opening let me ask: Do you accept the first quality
postulate, about there being nothing but value and that the division
is between Dynamic and Static value (or quality or moral)? This IS
not self-evident or provable, that much I know already.
-------------------------------------------------

"But survival of the fittest is one of those catch phrases like 'mutants' or
'misfits' that sounds best when you don't ask precisely what it means.
Fittest for what? Fittest for survival? That reduces to survival of the
survivors which doesn't say anything."
(Lila Chapt 11)

You say there is nothing but value Bodvar, in other words value is
everything. But what is everything? Value? Then all that you are saying is
that everything is everything which doesn't say anything.

If it suits you linguistically to use the term 'value' then that is fine
with me. I prefer the more economical 'everything' which doesn't require a
tautology for clarification. Having said that I can go along with you so
far.

Now, to the division of value (everything) between Dynamic and Static value.

If we agree there is an 'everything' (value as you put it) and I suspect we
do, then it would seem clear that we can divide this value in which ever way
it suits us. The 'everything' doesn't mind, it just carries on being
everything. For example, I can divide my garden into a biological part of
the whole and an inorganic part of the whole, or I can divide it into
vegetables, flowers and soil, or I can just say that it is a garden full
stop. Alternatively I can divide it into any other classification that I
see fit. All of these boundaries are equally valid. Again, if you want to
draw a boundary between these two aspects of 'everything' than I am happy to
go along with you.

So we agree. But what does this tell us? I don't see that you have said
anything more than that the universe is a universe (one-whole) and that you
want to place a dividing line between what you define as dynamic and static
value. (or pure experience and filtered experience or however you feel most
comfortable expressing it). Simply by making that division of one into two
you entertain some form of dualism, but I can see why you want to do so.

I think your language is rather convoluted but I see no reason (or
non-reason) not to accept this and indeed have thought for some time that it
is self-evident.

---------------------------------------------------------
PS: I see that there were some highly interesting entries to the
"Struan" thread in today's mail. Particularly Magnus who identifies
your "emotivism" as the abominable S of SOM. As Magnus knows can
subject/objectivity be seen as Intellect of MoQ, but the SAIOM idea
may have passed you by Struan (no irony) so I'll recapture: Pirsig's
ideas worried me, it looked solid enough (once its premises are
accepted), but also like doing away with rationality, enlightenment,
science and this is after all the Western heritage. Enter the
SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ idea. Rationality is no evil to be expelled,
but the highest static GOOD. Admittedly it requires a transcendence of
Intellect, but that is also an important tenet of the MOQ: Dynamic
Quality working to free itself from ANY static level, using the values
of the last "latch" in the process. Give it a fair test by your
formidable intellect Struan.
------------------------------------------------------

This so called, 'SAIOM' idea is not a problem in my understanding in the
sense that I am fully aware that the MoQ has no intention of jettisoning
rationality and indeed it sees itself as reconciling rationality with the
'larger picture." I also accept that there is no logical incoherence in this
position as you present it. As I have stated before, I do not deny the
consistency, only the inference.

The problem here, as I see it, is not that I "smell danger" in this type of
argument ( it is after all intrinsically a very old argument as you would no
doubt agree), it is more that I see it as superfluous to an economical and
sound understanding of 'everything.' I have no way of knowing if you
subscribe to the economy principle of theories, but to me this seems as good
a place as any to start. It appeals to my reasonable self and to my
irrational sense of what is good (Quality). In economical terms the MoQ
seems like a superfluous (and therefore ugly) imposition upon an otherwise
beautiful solution.

You have taken a dualist position and added to it Quality thus reconciling a
reformulated dualism. What I don't understand is why you didn't start from
some type of monist position and just stay there. If you had stayed there
this whole Quality thing would not be required. The resolution would be
obsolete and the true unity of 'Everything,' 'Quality,' 'God,' 'Ultimate
Reality,' 'Nature,' or whatever word you want to cling to, would be
reaffirmed.

This is why I say that it is your dualism that you are trying to get away
from as many on this forum have stated quite openly. It seems to be almost
'de rigeur' to have been sent slightly mad trying to resolve SOM and the
'road to Damascus' euphoria of conversion is palpable. But what if you
hadn't started at that dualist position? What if you had known that it is
easy to view 'everything' as a unified whole? The madness would have
vanished in a flash and you would have no need for the convoluted
metaphysics.

"It is all much simpler than you think," is my message. If you drop SOM then
you can drop MoQ and if you drop both you can find peace simplicity and
understanding. Is this not what the Buddha said? Is this not the essence of
the Eastern religions we all see so much value in? Can 'reality' only be for
the few who have the wit and patience to construct or comprehend any
metaphysics, let alone this one? Do you think that the uneducated masses of
the world get driven mad thinking how strange it is that mind and matter
have different properties? Of course they don't. They just get on with their
lives, 'at one' with their 'God.'

If you still want me to go away and come back when I 'know what it is about'
then I will. You could say the same to everyone on this forum and there
would be nobody left for you to argue with Bodvar. Why do you think we all
came here?

I like Pirsig's mountain analogy and with far less literary skill would like
to extend it. When you climb to the highest peaks you have to be mighty
careful that the path you forge is taking you in the right direction. If you
stray in the lower regions there is always someone to call you back, but up
in the rarefied heights you are out of reach of the voices of others below
and so the wilderness threatens more than ever. One day the others might
pass you, but by now you are so far into the wilderness you can't register
their
passing and their voices seem unreal. If only you had listened to that fool
at the bottom who implored you to take a map, but of course you knew where
you were going and your God was on your side. What could possibly go wrong?

Struan

"It's not the 'nice' guys who bring about real social change. 'Nice' guys
look nice because they are conforming. It is the bad guys who only look nice
a hundred years later that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution."
(Lila Chpt 13)

(Takes on a whole new meaning if you view the LS as a mini society) ;-)

--
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