Platt,
I'm going to be a little hard.
Marco:
> The superiority of capitalism over communism resides in the dynamism ensured
by
> capitalism at the social level. So, I think it would be moral to have a
dynamic
> form of intellect (more dynamic than SOM), as counterpart of the social
> dynamism, that, I'm pretty sure of it, causes also terrible damages,
especially
> to those population that are not enough intellectually equipped to tame the
> capitalistic beast.
PLATT:
> Beast? Since work performed by individuals and businesses furnishes
> the funds to support socialistic programs through involuntary taxation,
> the question of which system is more "beast-like" is debatable to say
> the least.
Beast is like to say Giant. Social patterns tend to be as huge as possible.
Capitalism is a beast, just like communism is a beast. By the way, your complete
refusal of taxation sounds automatically as the refusal of any form of society.
Very anarchic, I'd say, unless you are suggesting different systems to maintain
a government. War, perhaps?
PLATT:
> (About my gun comment--I ask you and Elephant what
> happens to someone in your respective countries who gets caught
> evading taxes? Isn't it a game in Italy to avoid taxes?)
>
What happens? Probably less than to an American. No jail is expected for them;
at most, hard fines. Taxes evading, here, is a cultural problem, I'd say.
Italians are very clever to avoid taxes and claim free health, school and so on.
You see, I can be hard also to my compatriots.
Every political party is assuring here they are going to reduce taxation, but it
is clearly very hard to do, as we must keep ourselves within the "Maastricht
parameters" the European Union claims. The biggest farce is when they say that
reducing taxation means automatically reducing taxes evasion.
But tell me, does in the USA everyone pay taxes up to the last cent?
MARCO:
> > Only when the individuals (every single individual) will have the
possibility to
> > say "NO!", and the sageness to know when it is better to say "YES!", the
> > intellectual level is established.
PLATT:
> This sounds to me as if you know better than others what is "sage" and
> what isn't. I'm sure you don't mean that, but many intellectuals,
> especially in the academy, have this notion that they know better than
> the average person what's good and what isn't.
What they do in the academy it's not what I do. I've written "every single
individual", meaning that the intellectual level will be established when
everyone will be able to decide, and it's quite the contrary than what you are
trying to put in my mouth.
By the way, I've read that a student there has been expelled from his school, as
he was wearing a Coca Cola T-Shirt, while the sponsor of the school is Pepsi (or
viceversa). You see, often even the market patterns tell the individuals what
they have to do. [When I read "sponsor of the school" I shiver].
PLATT:
> Such elitism can lead
> to trouble, especially in a centrally controlled socialist system. The lust
> for power is not found among capitalists alone. I fear social control
> much more from intellectuals in positions of power in government than
> from the creators and producers. Government, stripped of it's
> benevolent clothes, is legalized force. Microsoft cannot torture people
> or send them to the gulag.
But Nike and others pay few dollars Pakistan children in change of 14 hours of
daily job. But the oil companies in Nigeria are destroying the environment,
paying the local government. But the fruit companies in Africa sprinkle poisons
from the airplanes over the fields while workers (slaves?) are picking bananas
with no breath protections. Don't you see that usually, where there is a natural
richness (Oil, Gold, Diamonds), local people are poor? The worst elitism I see
is the one of capitalistic nations. Can you see the difference between
colonialism and free market?
MARCO:
> > Yes, I think the individual has to claim care. Of course, care can't be
really
> > achieved imposing force. But also, I think it's really hard to BUY care with
> > money. The excellence you can buy costs a lot, and it is high standard, not
> > really excellence. As long as the logic is market driven, the main thought
will
> > be to keep low costs.
PLATT:
> You can't buy excellence? And here I've been fooled into thinking my
> Ferrari was an excellent car. Guess I'll dump it for a Yugo. And that
> Renoir painting I bought. Out it goes Into the trash because it's "high
> standard, not really excellence." You can tell I miss your point, Marco.
> Can you rephrase it?
The real Quality Event of Ferrari has been the initial dream of a young man in
Modena, who decided to create the best car of the world. Many years of hard
work, NOT ONLY for money. Money is a good outcome, of course; but if you want to
be excellent, you can't have only money in your mind. I'm sure that Enzo Ferrari
has died very rich, but surely much less rich than Henry Ford, so to say.
Now you can buy a Ferrari, and it is probably the best car of the world. But
what you buy is static High Standard, a very good car produced serially for few,
not the dynamic Artistic Event of that young man.
And about Renoir, I have really no words..... for the moment.
Marco:
> > Of course, if you are not getting the care you want, you can change the
> > provider. This is the dynamism of the individual-buyer, and it's part of the
> > solution. On the other hand, we have corporations, or governments (Giants),
and
> > they have completely different (economic and/or politic) purposes. The
> > individual/giant struggle is evident *within* those giants. In too many
cases,
> > the member of the giant is a number, a piece of the puzzle. Good as long as
> > useful for the goals of the giant. So there are low payments, minors
working,
> > death over the job, political corruption....
> >
> > How do we escape from all this? It's hard to say.
Platt:
> If you don't like your job, quit. Show a little gumption. In a free market,
> that's possible. In a controlled economy?
I'm a little tired of your continuous misplaced references to a controlled
economy.
Firstly, 'cause even the USA is a controlled economy. Secondly, 'cause no one
here supports communism. You seem like the Japanese in the jungle who did not
know that the WW2 was over since 30 years. THE COLD WAR IS OVER! Relax!
Then, and it's worse, I repeat you are failing to see that our so called free
market is very prosperous on the shoulders of too many poor nations. And I bet
no social pattern will solve the problem. You can say it is not your problem, of
course, my dear Mr. Cynical.
In the end, again you don't give any answer to the main question. Isn't Pirsig
claiming an intellectual control over society? If yes, how? I tried a timid
answer. You don't agree, nevertheless you don't suggest anything but a religion
of the Unruled Capitalism.
Marco:
> > what I suggest, claiming care is not simply to oppose the menace to change
the
> > supplier. For example, we use to ask "How much does it cost" and not "What
is
> > the value of your solution". We are very glad to know we got a good vote at
> > school, but we are not very used to ask our teachers for "What did I learn".
> >
> > These kind of questions shift the focus from the objective measurement of
the
> > product/service we are buying, to the quality they are giving to us. There's
in
> > them the power to *force* the other individuals to consider themselves as
> > aRTists, more than members of a giant.
PLATT:
> Please give more examples of the kinds of questions we should be
> asking. I always thought money is a fair measure of quality in the
> marketplace. If I value this product over that, or this school over that, I'm
> willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you propose a different
> means of ascertaining and demonstatring individual values?
Marco:
Hope Roger will excuse me if I copy one of his old invectives.
" Well, I take back what I said about guessing we were in basic agreement here.
Though I respect your views, I could disagree with virtually every sentence
above. In one paragraph you were able to contradict a many of the basic
principles in the MOQ, the philosophies of Plato and the Sophists, and common
sense. I had no idea we were so far apart. "
Sorry if I thought that man is the measure of all things. Sorry if I thought
that Quality is undefinable and unmeasurable. Sorry if I thought that RMP was
right when he did not sell ZAMM to Robert Redford. Sorry if I'm thinking that
intellect is more moral than society. Sorry if I think that Science and Art,
Knowledge and Beauty, Human Rights and Happiness should be served by society and
not slaves of society. Sorry if I still think that there's something good in the
idea that all the people should have equal opportunities in a free market. Sorry
for my dreams, my imagination, my utopia.
Marco:
> > After all, my utopia for the intellectual era is a world of artists.
PLATT:
> Yes. And double yes. But I get real aesthetic pleasure from my Ferrari.
> In fact, most of the products and services I buy from the grubby, selfish
> capitalists contain an aesthetic element. I delight in the aesthetics at
> the local supermarket--all those bright, attractive displays and
> packages. I love to see all the alluring goods in the stores in the mall. I
> thrill at the sight of skyscrapers and huge oil tankers and humming
> electrical generating plants.
>
> Yes, Marco. Let's push the aesthetic. On that we fully agree. When
> something works well, you can feel it; there is a sense of rightness
> about it. I call that rightness beauty. The people I admire most are
> those who are obsessed with it.
>
No, Platt. Game over. Sorry to baldly state that, but I think your obsession for
aesthetics arises from your cynical view of ethics. You think that ethics is not
a problem; you think that the market will provide justice. You think that the
goal of existence is to possess a Renoir, not to be Renoir. Sadly, this is the
reason for many believe that Beauty is a frill.
When you enter your beautiful supermarket at the 50th floor of your beautiful
skyscraper, don't forget how many human rights have been overwhelmed in the name
of that "beauty". Look at the low paid Hispanic immigrant cleaning the floor.
She's not transparent.
At the contrary, my idea of aesthetics, according to my MOQ understanding is
that the aesthetic/ethic division should be solved. Beauty as a human right,
just like freedom. People have the right to both "Bread and Roses" [again I
suggest this movie by Ken Loach]. This is, in the end, my suggestion for the
intellectual level.
Ciao
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:20 BST