Hey rog,
you said:
>Elliot,
>
>Your vision is certainly grand, and I agree there probably will be a
>progression over time toward more rewarding, self actualizing explorations
>of
>Quality in work and play.
>
>Just to clarify though, are you suggesting that the world would be better
>off
>today if people stopped producing things for each other or servicing each
>other and instead started... meditating... or reading Chaucer all day?
Elliot:
Hardly. Nor am i suggesting as you say later in your response that work is
nessicarily unpleasant. My ideal society involves labor where individuals
are free to achieve peace of mind in the things they produce and thus enjoy
their work more. When things are produced in a profit/loss scenario, profit
rather than Quality is the aim. Do you deny that many people only go to
work because they need to inorder to survive? The fact that this question
of survival weighs heavy on these people's shoulders whereas concerns of
Quality are secondary seems absurd when we consider the capability we have
to support the lives of all these people with very little work. Very few
are encouraged to work for its own sake, and those who enjoy their job but
who would quit in an instant if their survival was no longer dependant upon
that job are not what i consider to be ideal. Questions of Profit and loss
and not of Quality are dominating.
>Are you suggesting that people today are generally incapable of
>intrinsically
>enjoying work?
Elliot:
Again, not at all. Quite the opposite actually. ZAMM illustrates clearly
how work can be a rejection of domination rather than an extention of it. a
rejection in the sense that the person is pursuing their personal project
rather than a social one such as economic growth or production of shoes
which are in high demand because of fashion. Profit and loss thinking
brings social goals to the forefront and leaves personal projects in the
dust.
>Elliot:
>If someone puts in amazing effort for thier entire lives in a job which
>they despise for the attainment of material wealth, are they the happiest
>the can be? is this how a utopian society would function?
>
>Rog:
>Someone who spends their life doing something they hate is a fool. May I
>suggest a simpler, less utopian solution? Try to find a job you like and
>that you learn and grow in. Modern societies have a wealth of options for
>those that are really interested. (and those that despise everything they
>do have a personal problem that utopia won't solve either.)
Elliot:
Someone who spends their entire life doing something they hate is acting out
of fear. fear of death or violating social sensibility. With the levels of
technology now available, this fear should not be so prevelant in deciding
on a career.
>Elliot:
>The problem is not with the distribution of the pie but in the quest for
>pie itself rather than Qulaity. The revolution then is an intellectual
>one, one of individual need structures, not of the social structure.
>
>Rog:
>The problem I have is that you seem to suggest that a plumber can't be
>happy plumbing or that a motorcycle mechanic can't be happy working on
>motorcycles. The Psychologist M. Csikszentmihalyi -- renowned for writing
>on "Flow" which is his term for optimal experience, or self actualization
>-- has shown that the majority of 'optimal experience' occurs at work.
Elliot:
You got me all wrong. the problem is that self actualization cannot occur
if the individual is working for profit and not for work's own sake.
>(rog)I agree that the revolution is somewhat of an intellectual one, but I
>would side with Pirsig that it is both individual in nature, and dynamic.
Elliot:
Well, everyone dissagrees with me on this point, but i see the intellectual
level as the level where the individual begins an ends. An intellectual
(using what i understand to be Pirsigs terminology, not "intellectual" like
einstein) revolution IS individual and dynamic.
>Elliot:
>Freedom and
>happiness imposed by a system is not true freedom (nor dare i say, true
>happiness).
>
>Rog:
>Scary words. I suggest we let people judge the reality of their freedom
>and happiness themselves. I also suggest we allow them to decide if it is
>"imposed" by a system, or "enabled."
Elliot:
So you reject the notion of false needs and also the idea that people can be
somewhat brainwashed into following social goals rather than personal ones.
If someone is really happy murdering, do i accept their perception of
Quality as as true as my disgust or do i get to realize their perception of
Quality is based upon fear (which is low Quality) and mine more in love
(high Quality)?
We live in a world of fear and confusion and i believe these things need to
be addressed rather than avoided. "letting people judge their happiness for
themselves" is meaningless unless proper opportunities are provided for self
reflection and alleviation of fear. few truly "decide" this society is the
best and most rational because few have given enough thought to questions of
Quality thorugh self reflection and critical thought.
>(elliot)Attempts to acieve utopia through social structures have been
>outright
>failures ranging from Lenin's vanguard party to the slaughters of Pol
>Pot...
>The ideal
>society is in a few words, one where men are free to pursue their personal
>goals, not one where commodities are evenly distributed.
>
>Rog:
>According to your definition, the world has been very progressive over the
>past 122 years, then. During this time, yearly working hours (per person
>working) have been cut in half in modern societies -- dropping in every
>country over almost every generation with the odd exception of Korea. Over
>the past 150 years in the US, men have shifted from 50% of their life
>working, to 20% working. Over the more recent 35 years men in the US have
>gained about 20% additional "free time" (up to a total average of 43.6
>hours per week) and women have gained an additional 10% (38.7 hours).
Elliot:
freedom is to be measured against its potential rather than against the
past. You look at the oppression of the past and say we're better off now.
I look at the opression of the present, of the stifiling of self reflection
and inquires into Quality and compare that to the possibilities for self
reflection and answers to questions of quality and see where not so well
off. The potential is growing much faster than the actual freedom, so i say
the world hasnt been so progressive in realizing the possible.
>Elliot:
>"It took Britain half the resources of the planet to achieve its
>prosperity; how many planets will a country like India require?"
>--(Mahatma Gandhi on the question whether India would reach Britain's
>standard of living after independence)
>
>Rog:
>What a great quote -- but for the opposite reason Mr Gandhi intended. It
>is now well known that there need be no shortage of natural resources when
>managed intelligently (important caveat), and no widespread shortages are
>on the horizon. Most resources are replenishable, recycle-able,
>replaceable or ample in supply. The key again is to manage resources
>intelligently (and for people to quit breeding like rabbits).
>
>As for HUMAN resources, I would say his statement is correct. The success
>of the British Empire did indeed come from a vast integrated system of
>relatively free trade across half the globe. The relative decline of Great
>Britain occurred with the abandonment of liberal free enterprise
>principles.
>
>As for India, in the end it lived down to Mahatma's vision (or lack
>thereof). Today, India's standard of living is 10% of Great Britain's.
>The Indian economy is in shambles due to excessive taxes and regulations,
>corrupt officials, poor courts, a general absence of formal means of
>financing. Estimates are that 91% of workers operate in the "black market"
>to escape the disfunctionality of the official economy. I can't speak to
>the "gross domestic happiness index", but I do note that there are an awful
>lot of brilliant Indians coming to the US and other western countries for
>rewarding employment and living standards, and virtually nobody moving the
>other direction.
Elliot:
I'd say rather my use of the quote is not so opposite as you'd imply. Do
you think Ghandi would agree that consumption for the sake of consumption is
good? People anticipate the newest products not even knowing yet what they
will be but knowing that they'll want them when they can have them. there
is no quation of wheter or not their happy the way they are, or what exactly
they need to be more happy. resources need to be used intelligently, but
recycling is not that intelligent way. Questioning the necessity of
production and seeking happiness outside of consumption is much more
intelligent. And for those breeding like rabbits, they are hardly the
problem in over population. A suburban home in america uses way more
resources than a medium sized african village with no electricity and no
cars.
Notice again that all your questions of happiness in india are based in
economics. SOM makes possible profit loss thinking because there are
subjects who can gain and use objects. In MoQ, both the subject and object
are secondary to Quality. the number of objects (such as economic
static\stics) are of secondary importance to the Quality of experiences.
Work can be enjoyed, but it should not be forced by starvation, nor should
it be enticed by rewards other than work itself. when these things stop,
people will be free to find a job they can grow in. This is similar to
Pirsigs ideas of a school without grades in ZAMM, perhaps you should read
that bit again, i dont know the page numbers if someone could point them out
id appreciate it.
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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 - 16:02:18 BST