Hey rog,
First, i admit the blatant utopianism of these ideas. My ideal society
doesnt happen tomarrow with any number of bills passed, or new leader taking
the helm. Technically, if this new society arose out of understanding and
not social impostions, then it would not be an economic dissaster. I dont
know where you get these ideas of dictators paying people not to work, or of
dictators or payment at all. I say, no freedom can be impossed socially,
you seem to think im implying the opposite.
>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.
Elliot:
No, rather im suggesting intellectual rather than social Quality dominate.
Objective Quality? if by "objective" you mean socially mediated then yes, i
think people should question these ideas rather than conform blindly to
them. Intellect is close to individual, but notice excessive biological
impulses which harm society are not accepted as good, where intellectual
patterns are. Pirsig says about anarchy i believe in lila something like
"why would people want to rob banks if anarchy was the social order (he
doesnt say anarchy, i hesitate to use it because you probably have some
absurd notions about it. Anarchy is Intellect not society guiding people,
not biology leading society and intellect as many seem to think)? Arent
banks precisely what people have developed to help themselves?
>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.
Elliot:
technology and not capitalism is what directly makes the satiation of the
biological level possible. Yes, capitalism is responsible for this
technology. But, must we forge ahead blindly into progress without
questioning it first? have we gotten all or atleast most of what we need
from technology? lets decide what we want, then find the technology, the
current way is backwards: technology has given us what we want, therefore
what we want has become technology itself, lets trust technology to supply
us with things we need but dont yet know we do.
Why is this hypothectical programmer making this program? why is this farmer
farming? quation these first, THEN answer the question. if the social
level makes more people farm than need to (and it does, not much though,
farmers arent the laborers in question, the programmer is) and makes
programmers program when there isnt anything anybody needs from it, well
then, whats enjoyable is the only question.
>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?
Elliot:
I dont know anyone who could play football or read for all of their time on
earth. even school children are so bored their ready to go back to school
when summer ends. And why is this shoe maker making shoes everyone hates?
would you want to be a shoe maker who is laughed at by your neighbors for
you crappy shoes and outdated ways? shoemakers want to make shoes people
want, he wants to see them smile and thank him and hear people mention how
comfortable their feet are all the time, they follow Quality and therefore
wont make crappy shoes. People like working, they want something to do and
then they want to do things which are good, which follow Quality. you know
this.
Rog:
>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:
compensated? profit/loss? punishemt/reward? no, this ideal but very far off
society doesnt work this way, your argument shows exactly why. You are
bored, you love the sun and nature and all your friends are very hungry,
hey, why not start farming and share all the extra food? you have something
to do which you enjoy and you feel better because your being of benifit to
society. no dictator here handing out food stamps.
>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:
no, shouting from towers wont accomplish anything. People who seem to be
behaving like sheep want to "wake up" and realize the Quality of everything
they do. Telling people and reverse brain washing wont do it, living
rightly and showing others the Quality of that way is what'll do it. If
your painting a fence, do it so well that passerby's notice that even a
menial job can be an expression of Quality, and they'll change a little from
it.
>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.
Elliot:
and the alleviation of any ammount of suffering and unfreedom we can is
destructive and de-evolutionary. and clinging to social patterns which
perpetuate suffering and unfreedom is constructive and evolutionary. Ok,
then i guess im out to destroy the world.
>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:
Im sorry your so stuck in old ways of thinking, or perhaps i havent made
myself clear. I think I've given it enough thought, i am happy and my ideas
make sense to me. BUT I CANT IMPOSE THEM SOCIALLY. no dictators, no secret
police, no even telling anyone else im right and their brainwashed. Live
rightly and let Quality effect others. if anyone asks, lay down the whole
anarchist bit, let the find Pirsig, Castaneda and all the others by
themselves, give hints if others make themselves open to them. And never
accept unfreedom on anylevel, wether a facist dictator, a capitalist regieme
or a pure marxist president. "the socialists may win, but socialism never"
(read perhaps my essay or my last post to DMB on language derived),
socialists are social patterns, sociallism, the ideal, intellectual, and can
never win through social means.
>ROG:
>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:
Well, the economic and political things all work themselves out because
nothing is being impossed, nothing being forced through that may get caught
up latter. do what is good, pursue excellence, and no massive economic
dissaster or low Quality things will come of it. someone once said "Love is
never wrong".
>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:
Im sorry, i missed that day when consumption and exploitation of resources
was no longer a problem. The Ozone layer apparently stopped shrinking, and
somehoe there are alot of forests that werent there a while ago. Theres
plenty of oil, hardly any waste and everythings ok. Sorry for the lame
treehugger comebacks but seriously, new technology makes the burden less for
the earth but doesnt alleviate it. the current system incorporates waste
and inefficency into its mode of action. not everyone in the world can live
like american suburbanites, there is really, really, not enough earth to go
around like that. the suffering of people elsewhere is somehow connected to
the amaziongly high "standard of living" (ammount of stuff) in america and
other post industiral, late capitalist socieites.
>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.
Elliot:
I say no such thing (it fails because the social level is not ready to
support such new ideas, time my friend, and patientce)
In short, let intellectual value dominate social, i think Pirsig is
dangerously wrong when he says this is already the case. the conflict has
just begun, but social value still dominates by a long shot. No socail
method (punishment/reward, dictators, secret police, democracy, none of it)
will suffice in bringing the change. despite its impossibility, do we
ignore the ideals or strive for them?
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 - 16:02:19 BST