Here is my critique of Robert M. Pirsig's book on ethics called Lila


    It has been many years since I searched the web looking for a forum dealing with Quality.  Originally it was with the intent of drawing Mr. Pirsig into a debate on his second book, but as I expected it was not something to be achieved easily. Today as I sat in the church of reason the subject came up again and the web has grown and search engines are more effective than ever, and a cursory search results in more hits than I have time to explore. Kind of reminds me of the master's own comments on the nature of inquiry and finding more questions as a result, the corollary of occam's razor -LOL.
    Let me start by saying that I was profoundly moved by Pirsig's first book Zen In The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZMM) and saw in it a wonderful elucidation in western terms of the mystic pearl I am so familiar with in eastern terms.  The only other work that I thought was of similar Value was a book called The Philosophy Of Consciousness Without An Object by Franklin Merrell-Wolff.  Which was a similar attempt at running the undefinable essence through the eye of the needle of logic and also succeeded admirably.  ZMM was a masterpiece and leaving Quality undefined was a stroke of genius which resulted in a metaphysics which in my opinion was bulletproof.  So you can imagine it was with great relish that I approached  the second work; Lila.
    It is a strange quirk of human behaviour that people cannot leave well enough alone.  There is a tendency to take something that works just fine and to try to improve upon it. Who has not victimized themselves in this manner?  By the time I was far enough into the book that I was just getting a hint of what he was up to, I already had a feeling that something was wrong.  Before the hierarchy of quality that forms the framework of the ethics was even fully developed I had to put the book down for a spell and consider what it was suggesting.  I was enjoying the story of course and appreciating Pirsig's style of spinning a tale with a measure of suspense, while plowing through some heavy intellectual meat at the same time which is quite a task. So it was not long before I picked it up and finished it off, but before it was done it hit me.  He had shot himself in the foot. With a sinking feeling I read the remaining chapters. Why did he do it?  With one stroke he not only foiled his own system of ethics but also simultaneously brought down the fortress of the metaphysics of Quality. This was devastating. To this day I do not have the answer to ethics that I was hoping Pirsig was going to provide us.
    The problem with Lila stems not from the idea that all things exist as patterns of quality, nor in the concept of DNA as a static latch for crystallizing patterns of quality in a static form, which I thought was brilliant. Because of my technical background I saw a parallel to what he described in terms of biology based on the four electron carbon atom, with what we are doing with silicon which is also a group four element. The trouble stems from the way that he assigns a hierarchy to the valuation of those patterns. The crux of this issue is that the metaphysics of Quality and the ethics of Lila, are in themselves simply patterns of quality on an intellectual level.  The hierarchical organization suggested in Lila claims that it is morally correct for a pattern of quality which exists on a level which is assigned a higher status, to devour, control, or subjugate a pattern of quality from a lower level, but if the reverse happens it is deemed morally wrong.  Many examples are given to support this idea involving the four levels in the hierarchy; inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual.  But it is also stated that the highest level of quality is the pure dynamic realm which must of course remain undefined and thus intrinsically represents the apex of the hierarchy.  Now since metaphysics is an intellectual pattern it exists at a high level in the framework of ethics according to this definition, but what a metaphysics is doing is attempting to define reality in terms of words and concepts, intellectual patterns about reality, the fabric of which is the pure undefined quality itself.  In this regard we have a case of an intellectual pattern attempting to subjugate, control and crystallize the nature of the pure dynamic itself, (which the original postulate insisted must be left undefined), into a static pattern,  which according to the very definition of this ethics is an immoral endeavour.
    This may seem to short a treatment of such a serious subject.  I suppose I could go on citing examples from Lila and ZMM and spewing pages of text to solidify my argument but frankly I think anyone who is disinclined to agree with me would do so anyways, and the core idea of the argument is clearly presented in the last  sentence of the previous paragraph.  I hardly think that Mr. Pirsig intended that philosophy is immoral, indeed he gives the distinct impression that the pursuit of knowledge is one of the most praiseworthy undertakings of the human mind and therefore places it amongst the highest of the high levels of intellectual patterns.  Interestingly, I got the distinct impression while reading ZMM that if asked, Robert M. Pirsig would agree that the ultimate answer to all philosophical questions is Mu.  Perhaps this is just my own interpretation relative to my own experience, but it leaves me wondering why did he do this?  I invite your feedback on my comments.


Email me: jstreet@uwaterloo.ca


Back to main page.