Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:58:59 +0100
Hi Struan
Good to see you took the plunge and posted to the Squad. I read your
essay with great interest as I think that it is a good thing that
there are negative as well as positive reflections on MoQ. This is the
only way that the MoQ is likely to progress from an interesting set of
initial observations and thoughts into a properly thought out
metaphysics. If in the process it fails - well that's life. I don't
think that this will be the case, but maybe that's because I'm a
natural optimist :-}
As a general comment I would say that in your comments you are being
overly harsh towards MoQ, considering that it is in its infancy. It
may not currently have the answers which you want - or state them
as you wish to see them. Pirsig has provided a framework within which
it is possible to build a more coherent metaphysics than has
currently been available. As far as I am aware no previous
metaphysics has been either consistent or complete - in fact I am not
sure that this is possible given that which makes people what they
are and our current state of knowledge.
Your initial words are to point out that Lila is "simply emotivism in
disguise". A fair point. Many people approach the world from the
perspective of that which they care about. The state of caring is in
itself an emotional state. Where we are talking about ethics and
ethical behaviour I think that emotion is a part of the reasoning
process as it stems from human belief systems. This does not mean
that it is the whole of the process - just one part. A workable
ethical system is one that can be adopted by people, who are
inherently emotional.If we propose a system by transcending emotion
and being purely rational then the system itself is likely to be
rejected and ultimately worthless. Again this does not mean that an
ethical system must appeal purely to the emotional side of those who
are to adopt it, but there MUST be common ground.
The construction of formal ethical systems in the past have, in the
main, been academic exercises and most have attempted to utilize
the rational nature in humans.How many have produced an ethical/moral
code that most people can understand, let alone adopt. For that
matter, which of the major ethical systems have failed to be abused
in one way or another. Ethical systems within the framework of MoQ -
with the emphasis on Quality - may produce a system which is not only
coherent and workable but is appealing enough for people to WANT to
accept. Pirsig's examples may seem to lack coherence in some ways if
they are considered purely from within a Subject/Object framework.
Which brings me to the next point.
You say that nobody adheres to the idea of a Subject/Object or
Substance-based Metaphysics. I do not believe that this is so. The
course on Ethics that I finished 18 months ago was littered with
references to "the subject/object metaphysics". In fact it was as a
result of this that I realised that Pirsig not only had something
valid to say about our current framework of belief but that MoQ was a
possible way out of the apparent paradoxes contained within SOM.
Within Physics there still exist schools of thought that are
sceptical (sometimes downright scathing) about the quantum view of
existence. The initial furore of quantum physics emerged at the
beginning of this century and it wasn't until after the middle of
this century that Popper produced his idea of the 3rd world of
OBJECTIVE contents of SUBJECTIVE thoughts. This from the man that
single-handedly changed the way we perceive the scientific method and
flew in the face of his former colleagues in the school of Logical
Positivism. Whilst many people reject determinism and adhere to the
idea of "free will" this is nothing to do with any knowledge of
Heisenberg or Quantum physics. Heisenbergs destruction of determinism
neither supports nor undermines the notion of free will - if anything
it confuses the issue. If there is no such thing as cause and effect
at a quantum level then how can it exist at any higher level. And if
everything is indeterminate - statistical probability -then how does
this imply free will or any grounds upon which to base a
libertarian system. Pirsigs explanation from different evolutioanary
levels at least provides (for me) provisional solid ground from which
to examine this and other ideas. It may fail but it will not be for
lack of trying.
I'll have a go at a couple of your points. I may get fairly wide of
the mark but this is an initial stab at it.
I'm on fairly shaky ground when it comes to American history but I
was under the (possibly naive) impression that part of the reason
for the civil war was to do with abolishing slavery in the south.
This was, I assume, where Pirsig referred to John Brown. Seen from
this perspective the war was justified as it was an attempt by an
intellectual system - that of human rights - to assert itself over a
flawed social system based on treating human beings as objects. In
the process a great number of people were killed. I think that the
intellectual system that supported a social system where all people
are treated fairly is superior to the intellectual system which
supports a social system where some are treated badly due to the idea
that they are property. Emotivism I hear you say, this is only Horse
saying that he likes one system and dislikes another. Not at all.
>From an MoQ point of view the former system is more capable of
producing a greater number of individuals who will progress to an
intellectual level and whose ideas may provide for change within that
level. In the latter system any attempt by some of its components
(slaves) to progress to a level beyond biology/utility will be
suppressed on the grounds that they are a commodity/resource for the
society to consume. I think that Human Rights, as a system of ethical
beliesf, can be placed mainly within the intellectual level of MoQ.
So any fight to protect human rights over social utility is
justifiable. This is the "raison d'etre" of groups such as Amnesty
International.
You next go on to capital punishment and the apparent contradiction
in Pirsig's views.
My own thoughts may be different to Pirgig's in that MoQ would show
that it is wrong for any society to PUNISH any individual by killing
them. Even if that individual threatens the established social
structure. The only way that an individual can threaten the
established social structure would be through ideas and MoQ states
quite plainly that for society to threaten or suppress an idea is
immoral. There is a difference here between the threat by the growth
of an idea and the threat by violence in support of that idea. The
former is moral according to MoQ in that it is an idea and thus of a
higher evolutionary state than society. The latter is immoral in that
it is biology attempting to overpower society.
In addition it is immoral for society to kill a human being as it has
other resources that it can bring to bear to contain any biological
threat to itself and where it has an alternative that enables it to
refrain from damaging one of its constituents these should be
considered first.
Phew!!
This post is getting a bit long so I'll cover just a couple more
points before I quit for the moment.
In your reply to Kevin Sanchez you say:
"Your discussions on ethics are futile unless you can lay out some
ground rules with which to approach them. <snip> 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."
I think this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. What is
a neutral morality? Surely a system of moral values is something
which allows people to evaluate what is a right course of action or
which is a wrong course of action or if there is a degree of both
within the choice to be made. If an ethical system is neutral then
none of the above is possible and so there is neither right nor wrong
nor anything in between. Neutral morality implies no morality.
I think MoQ itself supplies the necessary ground rules with which to
approach an ethical system. Ethical systems are value systems and as
the MoQ is founded on value it would make sense to utilize this. MoQ
is not value free - it is the opposite - but in the same way that
Darwinian evolution is "neutral" within nature at a biological level,
so MoQ is neutral within a metaphysical sense. It is necessary to
find some way of determining which course of action/choice is of
GREATER positive value than another action/choice.
Maybe we could start by examining the current major ethical systems
and see if there is some scope for incorporating them within the MoQ.
I'm thinking here of deontology, Utilitarianism, virtue,
communitarianism and rights. I wouldn't necessarily consider
communitarianism within this system as I think it is, at the moment,
highly confused and confusing, but you may think differently.
Anyway, I'll end here and hope that I have made at least some sort of
sense. I want to continue to discuss this with yourself, Struan, and
others within the Squad that have an interest in ethics. I think this
is an issue of vital importance to the MoQ and hope that we may make
some headway.
Horse
Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game
mailto:horse@wasted.demon.nl
mailto:darkstar@abduction.org
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.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