Hi Jonathan and LS:
Jonathan wrote:
> 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.
Sounds like you are morally condemning Phaedrus. But on what grounds?
Is there a basis in the MoQ on which you can argue for the high
quality of standing up for one's beliefs and taking responsibility?
Likewise, on what basis does the MoQ put a guilt trip on Phaedrus for
slinking "off free?" What "intellectual construct" do your use that
leads you to judge Phaedrus so contemptuously?
The reason I ask is that there is a widely held assumption in today's
culture that caring about and helping others is highly moral. Rarely
are the results of altruism examined. Nor is its narcissistic nature
discussed. How can you possibly presume to help someone, especially
without being asked, unless you assume they need help (i.e., inferior)
and you can provide it? On what principle does Rigel presume to know
what's "best" for Lila? Perhaps Rigel will only "enable" Lila to
continue on her path of self-destruction.
Recall what Pirsig wrote about people like Rigel. "They use the morals
to make someone else look inferior and that way look better
themselves." (Chap.7). Also recall that Pirsig's highest moral value
is freedom, suggesting letting alone, letting go and" slinking off
free" may be a higher moral action than "taking responsibility" for
someone else's life.
In Chapter 30, Pirsig talks about "the whole cultural set...says that
doing nothing is the same as doing something wrong" and goes on the
explain that the MoQ supports "dhyana," a retreat into isolation and
silence. He writes, "But what she (Lila) has to do is take a vacation
from all patterns, old and new, and just settle into a kind of
emptiness for a while. And if she does, the culture has a moral
obligation not to bother her. The most moral activity of all is the
creation of space for life to move onward."
Most of the moral sentiments expressed this month on the Squad have
not been based on the MoQ so much as warmed over pseudo love everybody
Christianity which one can find on any New Age site. If the MoQ is
anything, it is a departure from morality written on a stone tablet.
I fully agree with Diana's opinion that we haven't really tested the
morality of the MoQ properly because of "reversions to previously held
opinions without any attempt to analyze the situation in terms of the
Metaphysics of Ouality."
Too bad. I really expected more from the Squad than a series of
unsupported Rigel-like assertions on what constitutes worthy attitudes
and behavior.
Platt
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