To Gav
>From Risky
GAV:
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'.
RISKY:
Yes, I agree with your last two sentences. Well said. Let's sidestep the
'dynamic socialism' ideology moniker.
GAV:
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.
RISKY:
I agree with the transition to pragmatism too. Well done again. I follow you
in your criticisms of bureacracy too, though I wouldn't say that this
indicates that the MOQ necessarily negates social solutions with
bureacracies. Where they are features of society, I think we can say that
less bureacratic is better than more all other things being equal.
Furthermore, I think the MOQ would suggest if there are bureacracies, that
there needs to be COMPETING bureacracies. If the organization won't change,
it is usually best if we have other options -- meaning other organizations
from which to choose. Jared Diamond has written great stuff on this topic.
GAV:
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.
R:
I will again avoid your ideologies. I agree that decision making is best if
well distributed, though I believe intermediate level and central authority
are necessary too. It is a matter of balance, with the answer being measured
by the quality it produces.
G:
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).
R:
I don't buy the existential stuff at all (btw, I am not suggesting that you
DO). The external/internal is of course inherently dualistic, and the
"essence" thing takes us right back to the abstract universals that we so
wisely dumped at the start.
I am certainly not a fan of unlicensed, wanton freedom. I believe in general
that freedom should be extended as far as possible while not leading to net
harm. Societies need to deliver "positive sum" outcomes, where interactions
lead to improvements in quality rather than "zero sum" or "negative sum"
results. (rape/theft/murder/slander/war are zero or negative sum interactions
where one benefits at the full extent of another, whereas
cooperation/agreement/synergy/division of expertise/healthy competition are
potentially positive sum processes)
G:
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.
R:
I would suggest big and small. Local and global. Centralized and coordinated
where absolutely needed and decentralized wherever possible. I have never
been a proponent of economic growth as a sole measure, but I would argue that
the individual well being is more of an individual goal than a social goal -
but only because societies can't measure it. I believe societies should be
measure themselves on multiple dimensions related to the well being of
citizens' health/wealth/opportunity/freedom/self
determination/education/equality/etc. The best can and do set the foundation
for the intellectual level.
Risky
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 - 16:02:00 BST