The Le Guin Precepts | Hacker News Reader

The Le Guin Precepts

seths.blog

103 pointsBerislavLopac28 comments

These precepts are the "Three sieves", often wrongly attributed to Socrates. Here [0] is an interesting discussion on their origin. For instance, these three sieves are regularly referenced in Europe since the XIXth century, but can already be found much earlier in the Indian Manusmriti.

[0]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39843/are-socra...

Ursula Le Guin is an all time great in 'soft' sci-fi. She wrote with an anthropologists acuity in cultural analysis and used the sci-fi universe to speculatively explore societal 'what ifs' should a fundamental premise be changed in some ostensibly minor way. Left Hand of Darkness was one of the only books I read cover to cover, and the cover to cover again. She's a brilliant voice, and in today's fragmented, polarising world, more necessary than ever before. I hope more people read her work

Not only that, it's a delight to hear her speak in interviews.

Following the lead of Kej's comment, this attributes it to Buddhism, though with many more words than "true? kind? necessary?"

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39843/are-socra...

Personally, I believe it was with Einstein, Churchill (though apparently he added "will the person I insult laugh?") or Lincoln.

Le Guin's precepts on how to write fantasy are in "The Language of the Night".[1] It's hard to get, but an excellent book.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_the_Night

Yeah, but I don't remember these precepts on her desk as being discussed in the book - the main thing I remember is the stuff about the language of fantasy should have a distancing effect.

Looks like you can get it an annasarchive

Very similar to what Buddha said about right speech, the 5 principles of that:

- Is it true? - Is it beneficial? - Is it spoken at the right time? - Is it spoken affectionately? - Is it spoken with a mind of good will?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samm...

At the theatre school my son goes on weekend they have the “think” principle.

Is it True Is it Helpful Is it Inspiring Is it Necessary Is it Kind

Similar has also been attributed to Sufis: “Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?”

Is there a citation for this?

I have read and enjoyed a few of her novels and interviews. And it sounds inline with her worldview but I can’t find a source besides this blog after quick search.

If you remove Le Guin from the search, you'll find attributions for this quote going back to Socrates. She may very well have had such a sign, but it's strange to attach it to her when she had so much wonderful writing that she did do.

Example: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/823818-is-it-true-is-it-kin...

I've heard these guidelines pushed in Buddhist forums too. Assumed it was a Buddhist thing. Probably invented several times by several people. Seems pretty simple and straightforward.

But ya, all the fine writing LeGuin did seems substantial enough.

It is definitely Buddhist. Buddha says it in a sutta.

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

— AN 5.198

btw he later on defines "beneficial" as something that is immediately applicable for the listener, which is just extra good in my opinion.

That doesn't sound like Socrates at all.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39843/are-socra...

Sounds like it could be from just about anywhere. The answer is probably something really unsexy like Protestant missionaries, which is why you see it attributed to Buddha, Socrates, and cool authors.

"To light a candle is to cast a shadow."

Truth in human affairs is a local not a global quality.

Necessity in human affairs is a local, not global quality.

Compassion is the only truly necessary behavior on this trio.

Putting ourselves in others' shoes is this sublime homo sapiens ability that makes society possible by creating a connected mental and emotional universe.

Yet somehow for all the innateness, and the wise words percolating through all philosophies and religions of history, compassion is never the driving force. It is always just the palliative measure, tapped when aggression, exploitation and dehumanization destroys too much and puts society at risk.

Interesting sentiments, but I had first heard them said by someone who managed to, in some ways, do the opposite, all while thinking she was following them. It's in keeping with my experience that the people who talk a great game about goodness and their moral high ground being, well, less than they thought.

I am starting to wonder if just the act of proclaiming you're a white hat is the beginning of the descent.

I think this is most people.

People do not verify very much for themselves - they do not know 'if it is true'. They are told a story, believe that story and even call it knowledge. The story itself need have nothing to do with reality, and worse, it may have been placed there to intentionally to mislead. With a false story it is but a small hop to doing evil but calling it useful and good.

I won't give any modern examples cos of the downvotes, but think of the stories we are given of Christians destroying non-Christian cultures because they believed they were doing God's work. The principle is that their stories allowed them to believe themselves to be true, useful, good, even as they slaughtered the natives. Their culture feted them.

I think this principle of being misled by false stories holds through to today. A false story (premise/assumption) allows individuals/groups to accept a para-logic and para-morality despite the evidence of one's senses.

But many good things happen every day. Despite many problems, society functions better than ever in human history (if you don't get more granular than perhaps decades).

People do need to think for themselves, and a hallmark of free societies is that they do (to varying extents).

The doom-and-gloom about humans is getting very well-worn and tired for me.

I think the reason these precepts are sustained across generations of culture and, indeed, civilization, is because they're based around a fundamental truth - namely, that of survival, and are therefore a 'survival-decision factor' in the telling/usefulness.

But it turns out that its one of those factors which, socially applied, radically increases the survival potential of the group - not just the individual. This precept can be applied individually, but is most useful socially.

By way of example, in the case of the person whom you would characterize as not having fulfilled the principles, while claiming to do so - you are also manifesting that circumstance. By observing her doing this, and deciding not to apply the principles, didn't you fail to seek truth, be kind, seek to improve the situation, also?

That is the crux of these -ism's. They only work if you want them to, because they are driven by willpower and little else, yet they align with the fundamental principle of life, the desire to survive. Truthfulness, kindness and tact are contributing factors to a functional society.

helpful - very insightful and well written. I hope to see you around!

I in no way said that they were precepts I was following. So that's a swing and a miss on the hypocrisy.

But my point wasn't about the following, it was about the proclamation of such. Putting on the white hat for all to see.

Thats the point, you didn't apply the precepts and therefore did not fulfill their purpose - and by so doing, manifested the very thing they were designed to prevent.

The claim that trying to do good results in evil is a well-worn trope of reactionary rhetoric, a sort-of universal argument about any collective effort at good.

Humans are flawed, our enterprises are flawed, and all will do both good and bad. But that is a useless, binary analysis: It means there is no pure saint or demon - no 100% or 0%; it's just simplistic philosophical theory: Nothing is pure, ok.

In reality, every significant distinction is in the range 1% - 99%. Our choice - our free will and moral choice, now that we're out of Eden - is what we will do in that range. Some is easy, some is hard, some is harder.

If you don't choose to work at it, you won't be doing much good. And then who will?

You missed it.

I didn't say trying to do good. I was talking about the proclamation of such. Please respond to what I actually put down.

You're right to a degree, but maybe try a bit more charm. People don't have to respond according to your strictures. :)

We're social creatures. Talking is a necessary and very influential part of doing, especially if you want more than one person to do it. The pen is mightier than the sword.

I think that if you are really doing well, people will seek to emulate your example.

Charm amplifies whatever effect -- for good or for ill. It bypasses what passes for the blood-brain barrier and infects. My father is (or was, I am unsure if he is still alive) a tremendously charming individual. It was certainly handy when it came to talking his way out of arrests and charges, influencing people out of money, and so forth. Charm allows for an outsized influence on people, regardless of the wisdom (or lack thereof) in the approach.

In business, I have seen the charming destroy departments, stunt otherwise healthy careers, and walk a company off of a cliff. Ah, but they smiled while they did it! And that's what counts, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com