JONATHAN CONSIDERS THE VALUE OF BOTH LILA AND
THE NOVEMBER PROGRAM TO UNDERSTANDING MORALITY
Hi Fintan, Diana, Lila Squad all,
FINTAN:-
>THE MOQ IS A PILE OF CRAP
DIANA:-
>I guess the [morality] question has just been too difficult.
>I haven't seen anyone post anything that made the
>answer seem clear.
>
>After going over and over it I still feel that using intellectual
>arguments you could make Pirsig's moral codes support anything you
want,
>so it can hardly be the basis for a new moral order. However it still
>seems useful, even if it's only to analyse dilemmas in hindsight and to
>isolate the various forces at play in any moral conflict.
I think that both Diana and Fintan expect too much of Pirsig and of
ourselves. Lila is no more a manual of moral behaviour than ZAMM is a
motorcycle maintenance manual. It seems that some of were hoping that
this discussion would produce such a manual.
People who need a manual for morality
might consider converting to Judaism and consulting the "Shulchan
Aruch", a book which explicitly tells one how to act in every situation
the author thought of - and a good deal of it accords with common sense.
It's perfectly okay to follow such a manual provided one is open to
recognising a new situation which may demand breaking or changing the
rules. (Orthodox Judaism does in fact recognise that such DQ-driven
things occur).
In the November discussion, we've tried to use MoQ to make moral
judgements on which each of us already has our own opinion.
This reminds me of a joke about an experimental scientists who consults
his theoretician colleague to explain why treatment 'A' always yields
greater than treatment 'B'. After 4 days, they meet and the theoretician
pulls out a 10 page proof, at which point the experimentalist explains
in great embarrassment that he misread his student's results and in fact
treatment 'B' yields greater than 'A'. The theoretician then slaps his
forehead and exclaims "I wish you could have told me that 4 days ago!
It's much easier to explain that way round".
For some reason, the above story reminds me of Socrates' two speeches in
the Phaedrus dialogue. You can use an intellectual construct like MoQ to
argue whatever the hell you want, even morality.
Thanks Diana for the summary of Lila. The burning "moral" question in
the book is "is Lila worth saving?". As the book draws to a close,
Phaedrus is out on the ocean with Lila and MoQ, and one is left
wondering what might have happened had he continued with Lila on board.
Then the "hypocrite" Richard Rigel turns up to take Lila back to her
home town and probable hospitalisation. Will she come out of it? We
can't know. But what is for sure is that Rigel stands up for his beliefs
and takes responsibility, while Phaedrus slinks off free.
DIANA:
>
>If I have to conclude on this argument, the best I can say is that the
>moral codes are somewhat useful but not half as important as Pirsig
>says. That's rather worrying seeing as the whole book is "an inquiry
>into morals" and I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm just looking at it from
>the wrong perspective...
Diana, if you are looking for worry free morality, you will be
disappointed.
To worry is to care, and you can't have morality without it.
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST