Hi Elliot,
Elliot:
...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.
Rog:
So, you are suggesting intrinsic (subjective) quality should be the aim
rather than external
(objective) quality? I would suggest maximizing total quality.
E:
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.
ROG:
Let's start with the basics and rise up from there. Should a
hunter/gatherer do what is enjoyable, or what is necessary for
survival?
Should a farmer do what is most intrinsically rewarding, or what produces
crops?
Should a programmer do what is most exciting, or what is needed to actually
complete the program?
The answer in every case is that --wherever possible -- BOTH should be
attended to. However, in
the absence of being able to do both, at a minimum, the lower level needs
must be satisfied. Self-actualization is tough if you've starved to death.
To address your issue that we have a capability to support others with very
little work neglects the fact that the reason we are able to attain such a
high level of productivity is because our advanced social economy has become
extremely effective at improving the efficiency of our efforts. Your
recommendation that everyone do what they want rather than what others want
(ie are willing to reward them for) would undermine our economy and lead to
disaster.
As usual, I suggest the solution is not an either/or win/lose, but a
win/win. The best jobs are intrinsically and
extrinsically rewarding.
Elliot:
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.
ROG:
And if their personal project is to play football or read Norman Mailer
novels all day? Or perhaps to produce shoes that are not in demand
because of low quality and bad style?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for people pursuing personal projects, but I
find it laughable that anyone expects them to be paid for it - unless it
also adds value to others. You are confusing work and play. I am fine with
treating work (meaning something that others' value) as play, but it is
quite another to suggest that whatever people choose to pursue for its own
sake should also be compensated as work. And that is where you seem to go!
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.
ROG:
So, is your solution to shout this out from the highest tower? "WAKE UP YOU
SHEEP!" I will join you. Sounds like fun. But don't take the
concept too far and start dictating what others have to do (you know, to
offset their "brainwashing") or what employers or governments must do. Your
theory - taken to the extreme -- is economically absurd.
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:
Again, we probably can agree in the win/win situation where value is added
to society/others as well as to one's self. But your extreme of ONLY working
for its own sake is destructive and de-evolutionary.
>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:
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.
ROG:
But YOU HAVE given it enough thought haven't you? The other hundred's of
millions of people in the US are ignorant brainwashed masses huh? Good
thing they have you and your infinite wisdom to protect them. This is the
kind of attitude that leads to so much pain and misery. It always starts
out noble and idealistic. Decades later, after the pogroms and the massive
force and the secret police and the elimination of those that aren't true
believers it eventually almost works too.
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.
ROG:
Noble enough. May I suggest we be careful to analyze what has contributed
to the progress and what has contributed to regression though, and that we
actually make suggestions for the former rather than the latter? Finally,
let's understand the economic and political ramifications of our ideas. It is
easy to suggest that we should be paid wages to pursue our "personal
projects", it remains to be seen how we could do this other than by
dismantling the productivity of our current society (the one that keeps us
alive) and replacing it with a totalitarian state that demands that employers
pay workers to self actualize.
Elliot:
...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.
Rog:
But the amount of resources becomes a non-issue since they produce even more
than they consume (and we already established that the resources in question
are either abundant and/or replenish-able)
Elliot:
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
ROG:
The analogy (which Pirsig chalked up as a massive failure, btw) would hold
true if you are suggesting that people work without pay. But it is the exact
opposite of what you actually are suggesting, namely that people get paid NOT
TO WORK.
Sorry to come on so strong, but this idea of yours is really bizarre.
Rog
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 - 16:02:19 BST