ROGER CLARIFIES THAT HE CONCURS
WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF MONEY AND
HE ASKS DMB TO START A NEW DIALOGUE
To; Platt, David B. , jc and Jon
Let's start withsome quotes from David.
DMB:
The best things in life REALLY are free.
The freedom to shop is very far away from the Enlightenment
ROGER:
Just for the record, I do agree 100% with these statements.
JC:
Money is absolutely the
highest expression of quality on a social level - but if it ever dominates
over the intellect, then it is immoral. And in our culture, money rules
over the intellect far too often. I think thats where we have a feeling of
"bad quality" over the whole concept.
I'll even offer you the hypothesis that the most significant advances in
social evolution toward quality come about because of a dynamic that has
nothing to do with money.
Money is an economic measurement ... but does it really maximize
social freedom? Millions of people have no social freedom at all because
they are pursuing money so assiduously that they don't have time to talk to
their neighbors or their own family for that matter. How is their social
life free?
ROGER:
Again I of course agree. My only comment to jc is that one 'freedom' is to
live your life as a slave to money.
[back to] DMB:
Unmoderated Social Darwinism is the worst kind of economics. It can't
even manage to respect social level values and turns our economic
enviroment back to the laws of the jungle. It is degenerate insofar as
it assumes biological values where there should be social values, at
least. Pirsig complains about the meaninglessness of the "survival of
the fittest" in biological Darwinism. He says it like saying the
"survival of the survivors". It doesn't tell you much about evolution.
Naturally, the MOQ injects morality and values there and at every level.
ROGER:
What is your definition of unmoderated Social Darwinism? If I know that, I
can respond more to the other points.
As for the meaninglessness of 'survival of the fittest', lets remember that
the MOQ is an evolutionary metaphysics. A crucial concept in evolution is the
varying ability to either reproduce or to survive or last. Below is one of
Pirsig's many quotes on the topic:
"If you eliminate suffering from the world you eliminate life. There's no
evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the
negative face of Quality that drives the whole process."
Of course, the survival in the social level should be based on social values,
not on biological values. Let me know your thoughts David.
As to the continuing discussion between Jon and jc on the current state of
the world and peoples values, I of course could take exception with what
people value. I will say that despite all the worlds problems, the world has
never been higher in Quality than right now. With caring, concerned people
like you two, I am sure it will continue to get even better in the future.
Again, the suffering and dissatisfaction you face is driving the whole
process forward. To quote Raymond Smullyan, a logician and Taoist, "those
who wish to think of the devil might analogously define him as the
unfortunate length of time the [cosmic] process takes. In this sense, the
devil is necessary..."
Rog
PS -- Thx Platt!
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST