Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:08:38 +0100
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:15:23 +0000
Struan Hellier wrote:
> It pained me to write it and I sincerely hope that some kind person
> out there can convince me I'm wrong. Believe me, this essay was not
> written as a final denunciation, instead its purpose is more to
> allow others the opportunity to point out why I've missed the point
> and to put me right.
Dear Struan
It "pained" you to write (good old emotions), but you are "brutally
honest" and decided to tell us the truth, huh. Oh well, we have read
reviews by Strawson and had strawmen visiting before so I guess we
will survive. You bait us heavily. From this ingratiating and innocent
opening it sounds as if you basically adhere to the Quality idea -
just having a few minor objections to Pirsig's interpretation of such
and such events - but from the following messages a different picture
emerges; it looks like you don't buy anything of the MOQ.
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.
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".
In your response to Magnus you - inadvertently perhaps - proved
the Quality point. You said:
>Metaphysics is the mask, emotivism the face and all I have done is
>point this out.
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..
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.
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.
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. (PS. From today's post I see that you volounteer 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)
Have another go at LILA and return when you know what it is about.
See you later.
Bo
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.
Sincerely
-- 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