MD Pirsigean politics

pirsig says that socialism has more intellectual value than capitalism but is less dynamic. as david stated previously, it seems, therefore, that pirsig is pointing towards a 'dynamic socialism' as being the best quality political system. however pirsig seems wary of political ideology as a whole, as am I. ideologies usurp reality in favour of abstract universal 'truths'.  so pirsig hitches his wagon explicitly only to pragmatism.

so where does that leave us?

firstly let's go a bit further with pragmatism. pragmatism - as pirsig sees it - is about the good being the test of the true. this implies a lack of ideological rigidity and a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness to changing conditions. it seems that pragmatism is therefore incompatible with *bureaucracy*. bureaucracy (whether public or private) is one big heavy static latch. bureaucracy is a feature of big government and big business. pragmatism, it seems to me, is most compatible with the small - the local.

now back to 'dynamic socialism'. 'dynamic socialism', as some may already know, is pretty much a definition of anarchism (aka libertarian socialism). now anarchy is literally about having no government, or no social authority. the freedom of the individual (intellectual value) is untrammelled by state or church or business (social value) in this utopia. but this seems a little 'unpragmatic' to me. as we know, intellectual values are morally superior to those social values that clash directly with them, but intellectual value *needs* social value to provide a solid base. one can't dispense with authority and discipline entirely. the key question is  *who*  authority lies with. as we stand today authority is *external* to us - it comes from above and we have little or no power to do much about it. this is a feature of the inauthentic life - as  existentialists may note. when life is directed and defined by powers outside of the individual, the individual loses his/her essence - the freedom of choice (based on quality of course). but i am digressing...

so where does that leave us:

1. a shift from the big to small; national to local (this is the central tenet of ecological philosophy).

2 a shift from 'economic growth' to 'individual well being' (the good) as the measure of political efficacy.

3. a shift from external authority to participative authority.

okay, so that's my take on pirsigean politics.

cheers

gav